The quest for evolutionary socialism is neither a conventional political

history nor a traditional "historiography of political ideas/' but is an

examination of past and present interactions between European social
democratic politics and socialist political ideas. Since no study of
Bernstein's life and work has appeared since Peter Gay's 1952 study. The
dilemma of democratic socialism, Steger's book is a timely response to the
need for a new, comprehensive biography of the German "Father of
Marxist Revisionism," as it not only incorporates recent academic
developments, but it also addresses current debates on the "end of
socialism," as a result of the collapse of Marxism-Leninism, the fall of
the Berlin Wall, and the chronic ailments of European social democracy.
This study is set within the historical context of the fin-de-siecle
European labor movement, and thus Steger argues that Bernstein's
contribution to socialist theory is directly relevant to the current process
of rethinking the traditional project of the democratic left along more
libertarian lines. Bernstein's "evolutionary socialism," interpreted as a
quest for liberty, solidarity, and distributive justice, is still the most
appropriate vehicle for the extension of political and economic democracy
and the reconstruction of the sphere of civil society. As Steger stresses,
the future of social democracy lies in its capacity to heed Bernstein's call
for critical self-reflection, theoretical renewal and reorientation toward
the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment tradition.
The quest for evolutionary socialism
The quest for
evolutionary socialism
Eduard Bernstein and social democracy
Manfred B. Steger
Illinois State University

I CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo

Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521582001
© Manfred B. Steger 1997

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 1997

This digitally printed first paperback version 2006

A catalogue recordfor this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

Steger, Manfred B., 1961-
The quest for evolutionary socialism: Eduard Bernstein and social
democracy / Manfred B. Steger
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0 521 58200 8 (hardcover)
1. Bernstein, Eduard, 1850-1932. 2. Socialists - Germany-
Biography. 3. Socialism —Germany —History. I. Title.
HX274.7.B47S74 1997
320.5'31'092-dc20 96-26317 CIP

ISBN-13 978-0-521-58200-1 hardback

ISBN-10 0-521-58200-8 hardback

ISBN-13 978-0-521-02505-8 paperback

ISBN-10 0-521-02505-2 paperback
For my wife Perle and my family
 Contents

Acknowledgments xi
List of abbreviations xiii

Introduction: the nature of Bernstein's quest 1

Part 1: Preparation
1. The making of a social democrat 19
2. Persecution and exile 41
3. The "Revisionist Controversy" 66

Part 2: Vision
4. The meaning of socialism 89
5. Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism": rethinking
economics, state, and democracy 120

Part 3: Disappointment
6. Facing the critics 151
7. The revisionist debate extended 176
8. The dawn of a new era 205
9. Bernstein's final battle: confronting socialist instrumentalism 230

Epilogue: evolutionary socialism at the "end of socialism" 253

Select bibliography 261

Index 277
 Acknowledgments

The research and writing of this book would not have been possible
without a large number of institutions and individuals to whom I feel
greatly indebted. I am deeply grateful to the librarians of Rutgers
University, Princeton University, University of Hawaii-Manoa, and
Whitman College for extending to me the privilege of borrowing books. In
addition, I have used the collections of the New York Public Library,
Harvard University, University of Washington, the University of Munich,
the University of Amsterdam, and the Universities of Vienna and Graz.
Furthermore, I want to thank Dr. Wolfgang Maderthaner, Director of the
Austrian Association for the History of the Austrian Labor Movement in
Vienna; and Ms. Mieke Yzermans of the International Institute of Social
History in Amsterdam, for allowing me to use the extensive archives of
their respective institutions. In addition, the International Institute of
Social History has graciously permitted me to quote from its Bernstein
Archive.
My dear friend and teacher, Stephen Eric Bronner of Rutgers University,
and his wife, Anne Burns, have been of immense help in all stages of this
project; without Steve's erudite criticism and Anne's kind words of
encouragement, this study would have never been written. I am also
indebted to P. Dennis Bathory, W. Carey McWilliams, and William
Solomon, who offered important comments. Terrell Carver, Henry
Tudor, and John H. Kautsky read the entire typescript and offered
invaluable suggestions; I owe them special acknowledgments. I also
would like to thank my colleagues Michael Curtis, Gordon Schochet,
Edward Rhodes, Lawrence Besserman, Scott McLean, Manfred Hennin-
gsen, Peter Manicas, Eldon Kenworthy, Philip Brick, Mary Hanna, and
Timothy Kaufman-Osborn, for their general advice and support, and
wish to extend my gratitude to Michael Forman, Walter Jimenez,
Christine Kelly, Benjamin Peck, Susan Craig, Matt Reed, F. Peter
Wagner, and Stuart MacNiven for offering me the benefit of their comments.
Richard Fisher, my editor at Cambridge University Press, deserves
special recognition. His patience, attention to detail, and professional
xi
xii Acknowledgments
competence turned my typescript into a much better book. Finally, I
would like to express my deepest gratitude to my wife, Dr. Perle
Besserman, whose immense support and expertise enabled me to complete
this project.
 Abbreviations

Adler B W Victor Adlers Briefwechsel mitAugust Bebel und Karl Kautsky,

sowie Briefe von und an I. Auer, E. Bernstein, A. Braun, H.
Dietz, F. Eberty W. Liebknecht, H. Muller, und P. Singer,
collected and with commentary by F. Adler, Vienna, 1954
Adler A Victor Adler Archive, International Institute of Social
History (IISH), Amsterdam
Bebel BWE August Bebels Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Engels, edited by
Werner Blumenberg, The Hague, 1965
Bebel BWK August Bebels Briefwechsel mit Karl Kautsky, edited by
Karl Kautsky Jr., Assen, 1971
Bernstein A Eduard Bernstein Archive, IISH, Amsterdam
Bernstein BWE Eduard Bernsteins Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Engels, edited
by Helmut Hirsch, Assen, 1970
C I Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. I,
edited by Friedrich Engels and translated by Samuel
Moore and Eward Aveling, New York, 1967
DDS Peter Gay, The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism: Eduard
Bernstein's Challenge to Marx, 2nd ed., New York, 1962
EB Francis L. Carsten, Eduard Bernstein 1850-1932: eine
politische Biographie, Munich, 1993
Engels BWK Friedrich Engels9 Briefwechsel mit Karl Kautsky, edited by
Benedikt Kautsky, Vienna, 1955
ES Eduard Bernstein, "Entwicklungsgang eines Sozialisten,"
in Die Volkswirtschaftslehre in Selbstdarstellungen, edited by
Felix Meiner, Leipzig, 1924
MECW Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works, 50 vols.
(incomplete), London, 1975-
MEW Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Werke, 39 vols. Berlin,
1972-8
MS Marxism and Social Democracy: The Revisionist Debate
1896-1898, edited by Henry Tudor and J. M. Tudor,
Cambridge, 1988
xiii
xiv List of abbreviations
NZ Neue Zeit
PS Eduard Bernstein, The Preconditions of Socialism, edited
and translated by Henry Tudor, Cambridge, 1993
SM Sozialistische Monatshefte
 Introduction:
the nature of Bernstein's quest

More than thirty years ago, Sidney Hook, the late historian of socialist
thought, lamented the fact that "Eduard Bernstein has not yet come into
his own."1 Though Bernstein, the "Father of Marxist Revisionism,"
escaped the cruel fate of many of his socialist contemporaries who fell prey
to historical oblivion, Hook's lucid observation continued to remain true,
at least in the Anglo-American context, until the late 1980s.
When I began my study of Bernstein's life and political thought in
1989, Peter Gay's important, but dated volume still represented the only
full-scale Bernstein biography available in English.2 Within the next three
years, however, monumental historical changes gave my scholarly efforts
new significance: the Berlin Wall crumbled, the Iron Curtain disap-
peared, and the Soviet Union dissolved. Indeed, the death of Marxism-
Leninism rekindled lively discussions on the fate of socialism in general,
including the ailing Western European model of social democracy.3
Critical questions abounded regarding the feasibility of any radically
egalitarian reforms in our era of globally integrated capitalism. A century
after the famous "Revisionist Controversy" of German social democracy,
1
Sidney Hook, "Introduction," in Eduard Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, trans. Edith
C. Harvey (New York: Schocken, 1961), p. xx.
2
DDS.
3
See, for example, William K. Tabb, ed. The Future of Socialism (New York: Monthly
Review Press, 1990); Thomas Meyer, Was bleibt vom Sozialismus? (Reinbeck: Rowohlt,
1991); and Demokratischer Sozialismus - Soziale Demokratie (Berlin: Dietz, 1991); Robin
Blackburn, "Fin de Siecle: Socialism after the Crash," in New Left Review 185 (1991), pp.
5-66; Stephen Eric Bronner Socialism Unbound (New York: Routledge, 1990); and
Moments of Decision (New York: Routledge, 1992); Christiane Lemke and Gary Marks,
eds. The Crisis of Socialism in Europe (Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1992); Alex Callinicos, The
Revenge of History: Marxism and the East European Revolutions (University Park, PA: Penn
State University Press, 1993); Joseph V. Femia, Marxism and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford
UP, 1993); John Roemer, A Future for Socialism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1994);
Ronald Aronson, After Marxism (New York: Guilford,1994); Peter Beilharz, Postmodern
Socialism (Melbourne: Melbourne UP, 1994); and Antonio Callari, Stephen Cullenberg,
and Carole Biewener, Marxism in the Postmodern Age (New York: Guilford, 1994); and
Michael Waller, Bruno Coppieters, and Kris Deschouwer, eds. Social Democracy in a
Post-Communist Europe (Portland, OR: F. Cass, 1994).

1
2 Introduction
Bernstein's model of "evolutionary socialism" became once again the
focus of heated debates.
Indeed, a number of new publications made accessible translations of
both Bernstein's early and later writings.4 Other authors revisited the
historical connections between the Wilhelmine Empire and the rise of
German social democracy, as well as scrutinizing the various intellectual
currents within revisionist Marxist thought;5 and still others probed the
extent to which Bernstein's theoretical framework might provide badly
needed impulses for the survival of a distinct political tradition stretching
back 150 years.6
My study addresses these current debates on socialism arising from
both the sudden collapse of Marxism-Leninism and the crisis of European
social democracy. As I see it, Bernstein's neglected contribution to
socialist theory speaks directly to the current process of rethinking the
traditional project of the democratic Left. At the same time, this book
seeks to answer the urgent need for a new Bernstein biography that
incorporates recent scholarly developments on the topic. As a result, my
study represents neither a conventional political history nor a traditional
"historiography of political ideas," but an examination of the past and
4
See, for example, MS; PS, Till Schelz-Brandenburg, Eduard Bernstein und Karl Kautsky:
Entstehung und Wandlung des sozialdemokratischen Parteimarxismus im Spiegel ihrer Korres-
pondenz 1879-1932 (Koln: Bohlau, 1992). See also my Selected Writings of Eduard
Bernstein, 1900-1921 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities International Press, 1996).
5
See, for example, Veli-Matti Rautio, Die Bernstein Debatte: die politisch-ideologischen
Stromungen und die Parteiideologie der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands 1898-1903
(Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen Seura, 1994); Nicholas Stargardt, The German Idea of
Militarism: Radical and Socialist Critics, 1866-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994);
John H. Kautsky, Karl Kautsky: Marxism, Revolution & Democracy (New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction, 1994); EB; Moira Donald, Marxism and Revolution: Karl Kautsky and the
Russian Marxists (New Haven: Yale UP, 1993); Jack Jacobs, On Socialism and the Jewish
Question after Marx (New York: NYU Press, 1993); Stanley Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals
and the Working-Class Mentality in Germany 1887-1912 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP,
1993); H. Kendall Rogers, Before the Revisionist Controversy: Kautsky, Bernstein, and the
Meaning of Marxism 1895-1898 (New York: Garland, 1992); Peter Beilharz, Labour's
Utopias: Bolshevism, Fabianism, Social Democracy (London: Routledge, 1992); Gary P.
Steenson, After Marx, Before Lenin: Marxism and Socialist Working-Class Parties in Europe,
1884-1914 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991).
6
See, for example, Giles Radice, "The Case for Revisionism," in The Political Quarterly 59
(1988), pp. 404-415; Heinz Kleger, "Evolutionarer Sozialismus. Oder: warum noch
einmal Bernstein lesen?," in Widerspruch 19/90 (1990), pp. 38-52; Stephen Eric Bronner,
"Eduard Bernstein and the Logic of Revisionism," in Socialism Unbound, pp. 53-75; Horst
Heimann, Die Voraussetzungen des Demokratischen Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der
Sozialdemokratie (Bonn: Dietz, 1991); Doug Brown, "Thorstein Veblen Meets Eduard
Bernstein: Toward an Institutionalist Theory of Mobilization Politics," in Journal of
Economic Issues 25.3 (September 1991), pp. 689-708; and Peter Beilharz, "The Life and
Times of Social Democracy," in Peter Beilharz, Gillian Robinson, and John Rundell, eds.
Between Totalitarianism andPostmodernity (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992), pp. 54-68. See
also my "Historical Materialism and Ethics: Eduard Bernstein's Revisionist Perspective,"
in History of European Ideas 14.5 (1992), pp. 647-663.
 Introduction 3
present interaction between the world of European social democratic
politics and socialist political ideas. Indeed, my concerns are just as much
hermeneutical, political, and normative as they are historical.
No doubt, German social democracy provides the inseparable social
context of Bernstein's political theory. Torn from its historical soil, our
understanding of his "evolutionary socialism" would remain woefully
abstract, sterile, and clouded. Indeed, one might look upon Bernstein's
life and thought as a microcosmic reflection of the first hundred years in
the history of the German labor movement: he and his party underwent
the same ideological development leading from a Lassallean socialist
eclecticism to a Marxist purism, which, ultimately, culminated in a new
eclecticism enriched by both traditions.
The natural starting point for an interpretation of Bernstein's political
thought is his early critique of orthodox German Marxism, presented in
his 1896-8 essays in the socialist journals NeueZeit and Vorwdrts, as well as
in his more comprehensive 1899 study, The Preconditions of Socialism.
However, it would be a grave mistake to neglect Bernstein's instructive
later writings. Overlooking the fact that he himself repeatedly stressed the
"theoretical progress," reflected in his later work,7 most scholars of
European social democracy have often either trivialized his later oeuvre as
"political journalism," or bypassed it altogether.8 "By 1900," so goes the
verdict of his most prominent biographer, "Bernstein had done his
theoretical work."9 This judgment is echoed in the comments of a recent
observer who noted that, "[Bernstein] added nothing significant to the
position he had developed in the 1890s."10 Such hasty pronouncements
leave the reader with the erroneous impression that, besides his role as a
vociferous critic of orthodox Marxism, Bernstein failed to provide new
impulses to socialist theory. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact,
the more "constructive" dimension of Bernstein's political thought,
concentrating on problems of democratization, political morality, inter-
national relations, and social reform, emerged in more detail only after his
return from his London exile in 1901.
Therefore, my study seeks to provide a more balanced assessment of
Bernstein's political theory by giving equal weight to his two equally
important creative periods. First, there is his early revisionism, dominated
by his 1895-9 critique of the young, "Hegelian" Marx and his allegedly
7
ES, p. 41.
8
Susanne Miller, "Bernstein's Political Position 1914-1920," in Roger Fletcher, ed.
Bernstein to Brandt: A Short History of German Social Democracy (London: Edward Arnold,
1987), p. 101.
9
DDS, p. 255. See also Thomas Meyer's similar assessment, Bernsteins konstruktiver
Sozialismus (Berlin: Dietz, 1977), pp. 5, 33-34.
10
Tudor, "Introduction," in PS, p. xxxv.
4 Introduction
"Blanquist" tendencies. During this phase, Bernstein sought to reveal the
fundamental weaknesses of orthodox Marxism while introducing the
basic elements of his ethical reformism. Clinging to the idea that Marxist
doctrine could be simply "revised" by "developing the evolutionary
principle" inherent in the mature writings of Marx and Engels,11 Bern-
stein actually ended up changing the entire Gestalt of Marxist socialism.
Second, in his more constructive later phase, Bernstein endeavored to
expand and refine his evolutionary socialism by advocating an ethical
social reformism which was designed to prepare and guide concrete
political initiatives. Moreover, in his capacity as member of the German
Reichstag for more than two decades, Bernstein was in the unique
position to explore the crucial interface between theory and practice from
both ends; an opportunity denied to most prominent socialist theorists,
including Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Karl Kautsky, Georg Plekhanov,
and Rosa Luxemburg.
Yet, party theorists - particularly Kautsky and Luxemburg - played
leading roles in questioning the "feasibility" of Bernstein's evolutionary
socialism. Indeed, there are but few figures in the history of socialist
thought who have been more criticized than Eduard Bernstein. An
autodidact, social historian, elected representative to the German Reich-
stag, editor, journalist, political thinker, and theoretical "heir apparent"
to Friedrich Engels, Bernstein exchanged his early reputation as a
committed Marxist socialist for far less noble distinctions, among them,
"traitor of the working class" (Lenin) and "opportunistic philistine"
(Luxemburg). Advancing an extensive critique of Marx's and Engels'
"scientific socialism," Bernstein forfeited his potential claim to socialist
leadership by setting off the famousfin-de-siecle"Revisionist Contro-
versy" in the German Social Democratic Party (SPD).
To the ears of his former friends and German party leaders August Bebel
and Karl Kautsky, Bernstein's liberal-sounding arguments not only recast
their decidedly Marxist libretto, but clearly rang with the sentimental,
ethical tones of "bourgeois" social reformists like Friedrich Albert Lange,
John Stuart Mill, and Sidney Webb. Such "revisionist talk" bolstered their
suspicion that Bernstein, living in his London exile for more than a decade,
had acquired the insidious "British liberal disease" from his new Fabian
and radical-liberal company. Mocking his model of "evolutionary social-
ism" and flatly rejecting his repeated calls for a class-transcending,
left-liberal democratic alliance against Kaiser Wilhelm's authoritarianism,
the orthodox Marxist SPD leadership instead set out to create the
damaging image of Eduard Bernstein, the "petty-bourgeois opportunist."
11
PS, p. 28.
 Introduction 5
On the other hand, social-minded German intellectuals of various
liberal shades, like Friedrich Naumann, Eugen Richter, Franz Oppen-
heimer, Lujo Brentano, Theodor Mommsen, and Max Weber, resented
both Bernstein's suspicion of their market-based economics and his
seemingly "exaggerated" commitment to "radical" forms of egalitarian-
ism. Moreover, Bernstein's Kantian ethical ideals appeared to them to be
far too flimsy for a Realpolitik based on more tangible values such as the
defense of "national community" and "German national interests."
Sacrificing genuine conceptual commonalities that could have well been
translated into valuable political capital against the Imperial Government,
national-liberal leaders instead chose to highlight their philosophical
differences with Bernstein.
As a result of this ideological inflexibility toward Bernstein's political
vision in both socialist and liberal camps, decades passed without the
formation of afirmdemocratic alliance against the autocratic rule of "Iron
and Rye" in Germany. Sporadic attempts to reach out across the political
spectrum (like Naumann's courageous rallying cry for a united liberal-
socialist bloc with decidedly nationalist leanings) foundered on the
perpetual factionalism among German liberals and the SPD leadership's
rigid adherence to a "well-tested strategy of splendid isolation" - its refusal
to form political coalitions with any parts of the German "bourgeoisie."12
In the meantime, Bernstein's theoretical model of "evolutionary
socialism," or "liberal socialism,"13 languished in a political no-man's
land. Yet, largely atheoretical SPD Praktiker ("pragmatists") shrewdly
used his initiative in their efforts to link his attack on orthodox Marxism
with their own instrumentalist agenda. Thanks to their skillful tactical
manoeuvers, Bernstein's "revisionism" acquired even more negative
connotations, eventually becoming synonymous with "socialist imperial-
ism" and a form of "philosophical eclecticism," which Rosa Luxemburg
seethingly characterized as "a pile of rubbish, in which the debris of all
systems, the pieces of thought of various great and small minds, find a
common resting place."14 The echoes of such assessments can still be
heard today in Cornel West's equally sharp criticism that "Bernstein .. .
12
For an excellent discussion of this topic, see Beverly Heckart, From Bassermann to Bebel:
The Grand Bloc's Quest for Reform in the Kaiserreich, 1900-1914 (New Haven: Yale UP,
1974).
13
Bernstein's definition of socialism as "organized liberalism," and his general fondness for
the liberal ideals he expressed on many occasions, permits such wording without violating
his theoretical design. Expanding on Bernstein's arguments, the Italian socialist Carlo
Rosselli used the term "liberal socialism" as the title of his 1930 book. See Carlo Roselli,
Liberal Socialism, ed. by Nadia Urbinati (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994). Throughout
this book, the terms "evolutionary socialism" and "liberal socialism" will be used
interchangeably.
14
Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution? (New York: Pathfinder, 1973), p. 57.
6 Introduction
neither formulated a philosophical justification for socialist ethical ideals
nor gave these ideals any substantive content."15
While Marxists of various schools have been instrumental in setting the
framework for downplaying Bernstein's contribution to socialist theory,
many non-Marxists scholars, too, have not been much kinder in their
respective appraisals. Criticizing the "eclectic nature of his theoretical
enterprise,"16 such observers point to Bernstein's allegedly "insufficient
grasp of basic philosophical principles" as the underlying reason for his
"negligible theoretical contribution to socialist thought."17 Save for a few
exceptions,18 it seems that most historians of German social democracy
have tacitly agreed that Bernstein's political theory does not warrant
extensive research efforts. As a result, his central role in German social
democracy has received only scant attention, and the exploration of
Bernstein's life and thought as a whole has suffered neglect.
Contrary to this dominant line of argument, my study does not consider
the degree of Bernstein's philosophical sophistication as the key variable in
evaluating his significance as a political thinker and politician. Rather, as
the main thesis of this work, I argue for Bernstein's pivotal role in the
history of socialist thought on the grounds of his model of "evolutionary
socialism" - his pioneering reconceptualization of the relationship be-
tween liberal and socialist political theory. I seek to both illuminate and
critically evaluate Bernstein's attempts to change his party's theoretical
self-understanding in order to facilitate a greater degree of cooperation
with liberal progressives and thus mobilize German society in the name of
democracy. Seen from Bernstein's perspective, the official acknowledg-
ment and appreciation of existing theoretical and political points of contact
between socialists and liberals was the indispensable precondition for the
creation of a new, more democratic (and thus more "socialist") Germany.
In this sense, Bernstein's attempted synthesis of liberalism and social-
ism remains relevant for ongoing discussions on the "end of socialism,"
for it illuminates the central predicament of socialist theory which
continued to haunt the socialist project throughout the twentieth century:
its inability consciously to embrace the libertarian legacy of the Enlighten-
ment. As the normative preconditions for any socialist society, Bernstein
15
Cornel West, The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought (New York: Monthly Review
Press, 1991), p. 176.
16
See, for example, Leszek Kolakowski, "Bernstein and Revisionism," in The Main Currents
of Marxism, Vol. II: The Golden Age (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1978), p. I l l ; and Roger
Fletcher, "The Life and Work of Eduard Bernstein," in Fletcher, Bernstein to Brandt, p.
52.
17
DDS, p. 298.
18
For example, Heimann, Die Voraussetzungen des Demokratischen Sozialismus und die
Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie\ and Michael Harrington, Socialism Past & Future (New
York: Arcade, 1989), p. 276.
 Introduction 7
emphasized above all the establishment of political democracy. Insurrec-
tionary departures from the evolutionary mode of liberal social change
were not only viewed as the dangerous excesses of "romantic Utopians,"
but represented outright threats to the survival of personal liberty. In fact,
Bernstein never failed to emphasize the idea of "democracy" in his party's
self-identification with the label "social democracy," thereby propound-
ing the notion of an "evolving liberalism" guided by basic rational and
humanitarian ideals.
Bernstein encountered such ethically motivated forms of liberalism in
the writings of German neo-Kantians like Johann Jacoby, Friedrich Albert
Lange, Eugen Duhring, Karl Vorlander, and Conrad Schmidt. Moreover,
he showed great sympathy for the British tradition of radical liberalism
stretching from Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill, and Richard Cobden to
late-nineteenth-century Fabians like Sidney and Beatrice Webb and
George Bernard Shaw.19 Exiled in London for twelve years, Bernstein
gradually appropriated England's rights-based political language, empha-
sized the primacy of individual self-realization, and praised personal
liberty as the paramount ingredient of any democratic social order.
Though partially supporting Marx's radically egalitarian scheme for a
rational regulation of economic production, Bernstein regarded socialism
as an "heir" to Kant's and Mill's political tradition rather than a
completely new model fundamentally opposed to liberalism.
Like the "New Liberals" L.T. Hobhouse and J. A. Hobson, who sought
to instill a new social-liberal ethos in a young generation of British
reformers, Bernstein provided strong arguments for the necessary "mod-
ernization" of existing liberal doctrine. Yet as a German social democrat,
Bernstein's task was infinitely more difficult, for he had to address
German socialists who had barely escaped Bismarck's political repression
19
See, for example, Erika Rikli, Der Revisionismus: Ein Revisionsversuch der deutschen
marxistischen Theorie, 1890-1914 (Zurich: Girsberger Verlag, 1936); Helmut Hirsch, ed.
Ein revisionistisches Sozialismusbild, 2nd edn. (Berlin: Dietz, 1976); Pierre Angel, Eduard
Bernstein et L'Evolution du Socialisme Allemand (Paris: Didier, 1961); DDS; Hans-Josef
Steinberg, Sozialismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie 4th ed. (Berlin: Dietz, 1976); Erika
Konig, Vom Revisionismus zum "Demokratischen Sozialismus" (Berlin: Akademie, 1964);
Hans-Jorg Sandkuhler and Rafael de la Vega, eds. Marxismus und Ethik (Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp, 1974); Meyer, Bernsteins konstruktiverSozialismus', Detlef Lehnert, Reform und
Revolution in den Strategiediskusionen der klassischen Sozialdemokratie (Bonn: Verlag Neue
Gesellschaft, 1977); Helga Grebing, Der Revisionismus: Von Bernstein bis zum "Prager
Friihling" (Munich: Beck, 1977); Bo Gustafsson, Marxismus und Revisionismus (Frank-
furt: Europaische Verlagsanstalt, 1972); Helmut Hirsch, Der "Fabier" Eduard Bernstein
(Berlin: Dietz, 1977); Herbert Frei, Fabianismus und Bernstein'scher Revisionismus
1884-1900 (Bern: Peter Lang, 1979); Roger Fletcher, Revisionism and Empire: Socialist
Imperialism in Germany 1897-1914 (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984); and James
Kloppenberg, Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and
American Thought 1870-1920 (New York: Oxford UP, 1986).
8 Introduction
and were thus understandably suspicious of any "socialist" theory that
implied some form of cooperation with the unreliable German bour-
geoisie. Still, Bernstein insisted that the only path to democracy lay in
uniting the ambitions of a politically dissatisfied "new Mittelstand"
(middle class) offin-de-siecleGermany with the working class' traditional
demands for profound constitutional, administrative, fiscal, and econ-
omic reforms. But if it was to happen at all, such a class-transcending
alliance could not be achieved without first synchronizing the SPD's
theoretical guidelines with a concrete program of action.
For Bernstein, it was the primary task of the socialist intellectual to
complement the necessary "modernization" of liberalism with the long
overdue "modernization" of Marxist socialism - a project aimed at
anchoring the labor movement in the altered socioeconomic conditions of
the new century. Hence, Bernstein's evolutionary socialism started as a
theoretical enterprise: the untiring, empirically driven criticism of the
"outmoded parts" of Marx's model.20 According to Bernstein, such
criticism would actually facilitate the modernization of liberalism, since
Marxism, too, was a fundamentally "evolutionary doctrine." However,
revising Marxist socialism also meant junking its remaining "utopian
strains," throwing out its metaphysical Hegelianism, and eliminating the
"unscientific dogmatism" of Marxist popularizers.21 In other words, if
Marxism was truly the historical science it claimed to be, then its represent-
atives ought to acknowledge that changing empirical conditions necessi-
tated periodic revisions of its theoretical assumptions and predictions.
Ultimately, Bernstein was bound to arrive at conclusions that put him
squarely at odds with the founders. He disapproved of the priority of
economics over politics; he rejected Marx's celebrated dissociation of
socialism from liberalism; and he parted with Engels' contempt for
"bourgeois" morality. Instead, Bernstein praised the "eternal ideals" of
liberalism- the cultivation of refined tastes, the benefits of moral conduct,
and the virtues of piecemeal reformism. Thus, long before most of his party
comrades, he recognized both the obsolescence of certain Marxist ideas
and the inadequacy of Marx's method. He realized that revolutionary
Marxism was a poor vehicle for eliminating the existing democratic deficit
between Germany's semi-feudal nexus of authoritarian social structures,
values, and political attitudes and its accelerated process of economic
modernization. Indeed, Bernstein was among the first nineteenth-century
observers of industrial society who saw both the political importance of the
20
See, for example, Bernstein's conviction that "the first task of revisionism is theoretical,
not practical" (Protokoll iiber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen
Partei Deutschland, abgehalten zu Dresden 1903> Berlin, p.397).
21
PS, p. 28.
 Introduction 9
rise of white-collar employees and state officials, and the increasing social
differentiation within the proletariat.22 Moreover, he insisted that Marxist
doctrine could neither fully explain the remarkable adaptability of liberal
capitalism nor make sense of the fact that the leaders of European social
democracy were clearly more concerned with the organizational growth of
the labor movement and the outcomes of the next elections than with the
revolutionary overthrow of the ruling elites. Contrary to the ominous
predictions of The Communist Manifesto^ scores of ordinary workers and
most of their representatives seemed to prefer the occasional "crumbs"
from the capitalist table to the perils of an all-out class war.
Not hesitating to turn his skepticism on the proletariat itself, Bernstein
offered a more empiricist assessment of advanced capitalist society, of the
sort we have come to associate with the work of Max Weber. Indeed,
Weber's famous 1918 essay on socialism reiterates many "revisionist"
arguments made by Bernstein twenty years earlier.23 Both Bernstein and
Weber emphasized the central importance of politics and parliamentary
democracy in adjusting society to the forces of modernity. In their view,
such a process was neither a ruptural event in the Marxist sense, nor a
return to the organic bonds of the traditional Gemeinschaft. Insisting that
the Utopias of the past could not be salvaged from the process of
modernization - not even as the scientistic-romantic idyll of "free
associations of free producers" - Bernstein anticipated a future society in
which liberal and socialist currents would be forced to coexist for a very
long time within the framework of an "organized liberalism."24
The articulation of this new vision represented no small theoretical
feat. Despite his fervent rejection of Hegel's dialectical method, Bern-
stein's quest for evolutionary socialism assumed an almost Hegelian
character in its desire simultaneously to "modernize" Marxist socialism
and bourgeois liberalism through their mutual Aufhebung ("uplifting") in
a new theoretical synthesis. Inherently open-ended, Bernstein's model
was critically shaped by the concrete political problems of more than
three decades. In good Aristotelian fashion, he sought to locate the
slippery "middle way" of avoiding both an illiberal utopianism that leaves
no room for doubt, error, and correction, and the empty pragmatism of
cynical careerists whose social reformism had become devoured by cold
instrumental concerns. Over and over again, Bernstein struggled to
provide a more timely version of the old Marxist search for "some rational
22
Gerhard A. Ritter and Klaus Tenfelde, Arbeiter im Deutschen Kaiserreich, 1871 bis 1914
(Berlin: Dietz, 1992), p. 426.
23
Max Weber, Political Writings, eds. Peter Lassman and Ronald Speirs (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1994), pp. 272-303.
24
PS, p. 150.
10 Introduction
criterion for drawing the line between the visionary dreamer at one end
and the petty bourgeois at the other."25 In many instances, however, his
theoretical synthesis translated into politically unpopular compromises
which failed to satisfy the main socialist and liberal players of conflict-
ridden Germany.
Yet, there - in the midst of the concrete political dilemmas of both
Wilhelmine and Weimar Germany, and not limned by the serene poetics
of a purely philosophical enterprise - we encounter again the central
theme of Bernstein's quest: "What must social democrats do to make
possible, and cautiously extend, democracy in industrially advanced
countries?" Applied to the illiberal conditions of his homeland, Be-
rnstein's leitmotif represents an early socialist variant of the vexing
"German Question," so persuasively rendered by Ralf Dahrendorf as
"Germany's persistent failure to give a home to democracy in its liberal
sense."26 By rejecting Bernstein's theoretical blueprint, nationalist revi-
sionists, orthodox Marxists, and radical revolutionaries missed a great
opportunity to make Germany's political culture more hospitable to
liberty and democracy. Ultimately, both socialists and liberals failed to
resolve the painful discordance between their classical doctrine and the
demands of advanced capitalism. From the Left, Eduard Bernstein
offered such a necessary theoretical vision of ideological modernization;
this road not taken points to the implication of social democracy in the
ensuing twentieth-century tragedy of German politics.

Having set the stage for the ensuing arguments, it might be useful first to
offer the reader a short chapter outline of my study. For the sake of
maintaining a lively narrative, I decided to divide Bernstein's life and
thought along more or less chronological lines into three main parts.
The initial three chapters of Part 1 furnish the basic features of
Bernstein's life, set against the historical and political background of
German liberalism and social democracy. I focus mainly on events that
contributed to the formation of Bernstein's personality and his political
outlook- the broad scope of his intellectual interests and his remarkable
early party career as an editor and political journalist. Concurring with
Austrian social historian Julius Braunthal, who pointed out that Bernstein
was "much more of an intellectual than a politician,"27 I contend that
Bernstein's theoretical achievements far outshine his abilities as a party
25
Ibid., p. 35.
26
Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany (New York: Doubleday, 1967), p. 14.
See also Fritz Stern, The Failure of Illiberalism (New York: Columbia UP, 1992).
27
Julius Braunthal, History of the International 1864-1914, trans. Henry Collins and Kenneth
Mitchell (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1966), p. 262.
 Introduction 11
28
strategist and political tactician. Though an autodidact, Bernstein's
personal interactions with the most brilliant minds of European social
democracy helped him to develop into a genuine "public intellectual." At
the same time, however, by serving as editor-in-chief of the SPD's most
influential periodical, he never lost contact with the less illustrious world
of the ordinary party member. Hence, the opening chapters offer an
interpretation of Bernstein's intellectual achievements which stands in
strong opposition to frequently raised arguments belittling his contribu-
tion as a political thinker.
In Part 2, I examine in greater detail the main theoretical pillars of
Bernstein's evolutionary socialism. Chapter 4 looks at his attempt to
modernize Marxist theory by clarifying the meaning of socialism for a new
era of advanced capitalism. True to the critical spirit of Kant, he openly
disavowed historicist determinism, acknowledging the inability of any
political solution to overcome wholly the gulf between necessity and
freedom. Discussing his version of historical materialism, I assert that
Bernstein realized the impotence of Marxian socialism in the face of
problems of liberty and morality which were being continuously con-
fronted on the empirical level. Thus, he cut the dialectical connection
between immanence and transcendence which Marx had always presup-
posed. For Bernstein, Marx's teleology had been completely undermined
by the actual course of modern capitalism. While maintaining the
importance of structural economic forces for social development, Bern-
stein's epistemological framework nonetheless resurrects the role of
(Kantian) ethical ideals in a moral critique of capitalism.
Chapter 5 explores Bernstein's efforts to reconceptualize the connec-
tion between state, civil society, and the economy. Rejecting the illiberal-
ism of Marxist doctrine and embracing basic liberal views concerning the
nature of society, Bernstein considered the liberal language of "rights" the
most appropriate vehicle for expressing socialist demands, thus under-
scoring the importance of civil society as a public sphere where citizenship
ought to be universalized. At the same time, however, he remained
opposed to classical liberals who, after the defeat of feudalism, trans-
formed their universalist principles into a defense of privilege against the
rising Fourth Estate. In keeping with Kant and Mill, Bernstein denned
28
For a different view on this, see, for example, George Lichtheim, "The Revisionists," in
Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study > 2nd edn. (New York: Praeger, 1965), pp.
278-300; Kolakowski, The Main Currents of Marxism, pp. 98-114; David McLellan,
Marxism after Marx (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979), pp. 20-41. See also, Christian
Gneuss, "The Precursor: Eduard Bernstein," in Leopold Labedz, ed. Revisionism: Essays
in the History of Marxist Ideas (New York: Praeger, 1962), pp. 31-41; and Susanne Miller
and Heinrich PothorT, A History of German Social Democracy: From 1848 to the Present
(Lexington/Spa: Berg, 1986), pp. 38-54.
12 Introduction
liberty not purely negatively as the absence of coercion, but chose instead
to emphasize the substantive nature of freedom: political demands for
universal suffrage, equality of opportunity, and a more equitable distribu-
tion of the social product. By shifting his focus from an analysis of
inequalities on the level of production to the level of distribution,
Bernstein again betrayed his liberal bias in favor of pursuing social justice
through redistributive measures, thus endowing the state with the crucial
task of initiating and supervising piecemeal reforms.
Once the essential features of his ethical-liberal interpretation of
Marxist socialism have become apparent, Part 3 explores the main
political problems Bernstein encountered on his quest for evolutionary
socialism. Searching for the origins of the practical defeat of his vision,
chapter 6 first identifies the main arguments advanced by Bernstein's
liberal and socialist opponents. Orthodox Marxist critics like Kautsky and
radicals like Luxemburg charged with good reason that Bernstein had
actually broken with the founders' economic-materialist conception of
history. Bernstein was, in fact, fooling himself by thinking that the essence
of Marx's theory could be preserved in spite of his revisionist "amend-
ments." Without the Marxist idea that capitalism's inner laws of develop-
ment would, with natural necessity, eventually lead to a general "break-
down" of society and open a new chapter in human history, socialism lost
the powerful combination of "scientific" analysis and romantic prophecy
that had made it so attractive to millions of followers.
On the other hand, the response from Bernstein's liberal critics
indicated that the German bourgeoisie was far more national-liberal than
ethical-liberal. His principled reformism often struck them as too moralis-
tic in tone and too idealistic in design - a disarmingly decent, but
infeasible and perhaps even dangerous enterprise in a Germany supposed-
ly surrounded by expansionist enemies. Liberals were also quick to add a
good dose of their "realism" to the vital question of political leadership.
Who would effectively represent and market an "evolutionary" brand of
socialism in Germany? Aside from lacking personal "charisma,"
Bernstein possessed only moderate public-speaking abilities. Moreover,
his stubborn insistence on ethical principles would burden the crucial
tasks of political bargaining. As a mediator between opposing factions,
Bernstein was simply not in the same league with, say, Friedrich Ebert,
Friedrich Naumann, or Gustav Stresemann. In fact, when Bernstein
rejected forthcoming offers from left-liberals to leave the SPD and join
them, and, in addition, disappointed the hopes of the nationalistic Party
Praktiker to spearhead a nationalist faction, his liberal brand of socialism
was sentenced to an assured political death.
As opposed to most accounts that put the end of the SPD's "Revisionist
 Introduction 13
Controversy" at around 1903, I argue in chapters 7 and 8 that the old
dispute heated up once again between 1905 and 1914, during the great
theoretical debates on the use of the political mass strike and the role of
nationalism. Set within a general assessment of the cultural assumptions
underlying his views on patriotism and colonialism, I present the numer-
ous political obstacles Bernstein encountered as he struggled to maintain
his Aristotelian "middle way" between political realism and ethical
idealism, particularly in his attempt to furnish alternatives to German
nationalism and imperialism. Moreover, I discuss the intimate link
between the political fate of Bernstein's intellectual quest and the
accelerated process of bureaucratization in German social democracy.
Bernstein's activities during the Great War and the German Revolution,
as well as his pivotal role in drafting the new Gorlitz Party Program, round
out the themes of this chapter. Ultimately, along with Carl Schorske, I
argue that the revolutionary events of 1918 and 1919 merely formalized
the factional divisions that were already present within the pre-war
international labor movement.29
With the arrival of a new Weimar republican order, it appeared as though
Bernstein's quest for evolutionary socialism was to be given a new lease on
life, but the sputtering German economy and an increasingly technocratic
SPD contributed to the remarkable success of radicalisms of both the Right
and the Left. Chapter 9 traces the tensions between Bernstein's ethical
ideals and the various strands of socialist instrumentalism exemplified in
the rise of Bolshevism and the widely discussed issue of German war guilt.
In the end, his theoretical vision was smothered between a state socialism
based on industrial productivity and the rise of extremist political parties.
While Bernstein established the theoretical desirability for a liberal social-
ism, he could not guarantee that actual political practice would honor his
ethical ideals. In other words, without the Marxist dogma of history itself
assuring the coming of the classless society, socialism once again became
an uncertain enterprise, merely striving to approximate a moral order that
must forever elude the full grasp of positivity.
In light of this, Bernstein's attempt to merge the two great progressive
traditions ran a high risk of strengthening a utilitarian conception of
politics as the arena for political bargaining and compromises whose
outcomes would be judged in strictly instrumental terms. The fulfillment
of an ethical duty in the application of socialist principles thus became a
weak counterforce to the satisfaction of infinite material needs. Accepting
the political rules of representative democracy, Bernstein had a poor eye
for the tendency of reformism to breed technocrats who, following
29
Carl E. Schorske, German Social Democracy 1905-1917: The Development of the Great
Schism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1955).
14 Introduction
omnipresent electoral imperatives, let their political activities be guided
chiefly by their own self-interest and the immediate material concerns of
their constituencies.30
Hence, it has been suggested that Bernstein's evolutionary socialism
represents a "dilemma of principles and power" emerging from the clash
of reform and revolution - two different strategies of advancing social
change.31 While it is true that this predicament pertains to all political
theories intent on changing a given political order, a formulation of
"dilemmas" in such general terms pays insufficient attention to
Bernstein's specific "revisionist" concerns. As thefirstprominent Marxist
theorist of reform, Bernstein assumed that the increasing complexity of
modern society made the large-scale revolutions of the old days obsolete.
Thus, the main question addressed by his evolutionary socialism was not
the old Platonic dilemma of whether reformers will ever gain the political
power they must have to put their theories into practice;32 rather, he
sought to motivate social reformists not to jettison ethical principles on
their assured way to political power.
Given the nature of the regime that overthrew the Weimar Republic,
must we conclude that Bernstein's quest ended in total failure? At first
glance, there seems to be sufficient evidence to confirm such a view.
Indeed, seen from a realist perspective, one might conclude that
Bernstein's vision failed to overcome the fatal combination of Germany's
illiberal sociopolitical order, its widespread nationalist resentment, and its
policy of foreign aggression.33 Moreover, his theoretical synthesis not only
failed to save the integrity of Marxism, but, conversely, provided the basis
for the politically and ideologically devastating struggles of the Left over
the "correct" meaning of "Marxism" and "socialism."
However, looking at the astonishing rebirth of European social democ-
racy following the end of World War II, one can alsofindsome compelling
arguments to the contrary. In the epilogue of this study, however, I go
beyond merely recounting the "golden years of democratic socialism" of
the 1960s and 1970s. Instead, I make the far more difficult case for the
contemporary relevance of Bernstein's evolutionary socialism. First, of
course, there is his admonition to retain the crucial process of critical
self-reflection as the indispensable catalyst that drives the evolution of any
democratic socialism. Second, Bernstein's appreciation of liberalism
contests the deeply engrained equation of "socialism" with "Marxism"
based on the alleged antithesis in principle between liberalism and
socialism. At the supposed "end of socialism," Bernstein's embryonic
30
For an excellent analysis of this "electoral dilemma," see Adam Przeworski, Capitalism
and Social Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985).
31
This is the thesis of DDS, pp. 7-8; 298-310.
32 33
Ibid., p. 302. Roger Fletcher, Revisionism and Empire, pp. 184-185.
 Introduction 15
model of a "liberal socialism" represents the logical point of departure for
the sole viable progressive project remaining in our post-Soviet and
(perhaps) post-Keynesian era: a new focus on the role of civil society and a
conception of democracy that favors the extension of personal rights over
property rights.34
It is for this reason that I decline to evaluate Bernstein's political thought
solely by applying philosophical standards. What makes his intellectual
quest a worthwhile subject of academic inquiry is neither its degree of
philosophical sophistication nor its lack of methodological purity. Rather,
it is Bernstein's highly original attempt to formulate a coherent synthesis of
two great political traditions that stand for individual self-realization and
distributive justice. In a time when old assumptions about the meaning of
socialism no longer hold and liberal notions of universalism fall under
attack from a multitude of new intellectual forces, a fundamental
reconsideration of the theoretical and historical ties between these two
time-honored traditions serves an important purpose. Herein lies what is
today worth re-examining in Bernstein's political thought.
A final word on the guiding metaphor of the book: in an attempt to
capture the peculiar spirit of Bernstein's political enterprise, I struck upon
the term "quest," for it suggests not only a thorough investigation of the
subject matter at hand, but also connotes an almost romantic, adventur-
ous journey with no fixed destination, yet guided by a noble vision.35 It is
no coincidence that Bernstein's most famous statement should be his
much misinterpreted comment that a static "final goal" of socialism, no
matter how perfect, had no meaning to him; while the concrete social
struggle of the labor movement meant "everything." His willingness to
sacrifice the Marxist dogmas of a future telos for the open-ended quality of
an uncertain present reappears in his love for the political essay as a
stylistic vehicle of inherently unfinished quality and the logical device for
fostering the crucial exercise of critical reflectivity.
Hence, one should not expect to find the "essence" of Bernstein's life
work in a single book or a series of volumes. Rather, one must duplicate
Bernstein's intricate quest leading through a diffuse collection of writings
that span more than three decades. They are comprised of a dozen books
and literally hundreds of book reviews, published lectures, essays, and
monographs that, to this day, defy systematic arrangement. Ranging from
highly theoretical discussions of Marx's labor theory of value to journalis-
tic observations regarding political events of the day, the leitmotive of
Bernstein's intellectual quest only reveal themselves when situated within
the details of his personal life and the history of German social democracy.
34
See Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community,
and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought (New York: Basic Books, 1987).
35
I am greatly indebted to Stephen Eric Bronner for this formulation.
Part 1

Preparation
1 The making of a social democrat

Prologue
At first glance, an assessment of Eduard Bernstein's life and thought
seems to be a fairly straightforward project. Hannah Arendt has put the
matter succinctly: "Bernstein was honest, analyzed what he saw, was loyal
to reality and critical of Marx."1 Sir Isaiah Berlin concurs: "Eduard
Bernstein pointed out more clearly than any one before him the apparent
non-fulfillment of various Marxist prophesies."2 Yet, two entirely differ-
ent images of the "Father of Revisionism" emerge from the descriptions
of his contemporaries. The first, characterized by the relentless criticism
of his political and ideological opponents, presents a weak, theoretically
confused man who repaid the kindness of his mentor, Friedrich Engels, by
attempting to destroy the "communist world outlook" of "scientific
socialism" and betraying the cause of the proletariat.3 The second
account, conjured up by those sympathetic to Bernstein's revisionist
cause, is one of exaggerated praise, depicting a political thinker ahead of
his time who, dedicated to improving the lot of the working classes,
fearlessly attacked an antiquated theory which proved to be out of step
with auspicious sociopolitical developments.4
Not only do both images fail to do justice to the actual person, but
they also fall woefully short of accurately presenting Bernstein's long and
prolific career as a socialist theorist, political journalist, national

Hannah Arendt, "Introduction," in J. P. Nettl, Rosa Luxemburg (New York: Schocken,

1989), p. xxvii.
Isaiah Berlin cited on the cover of Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism.
See, for example, Luxemburg, Reform and Revolution?; Lenin, What is To Be Done?; Karl
Kautsky, Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm: Eine Antikritik (Berlin: Dietz,
1976); and Georg Lukacs, "What is Orthodox Marxism?", in History and Class Conscious-
ness (Cambridge, MA: M I T Press, 1990). Unless noted otherwise, all translations from
original German sources are by the author.
See, for example, Paul Kampffmeyer, Eduard Bernstein und der Sozialistische Aufbau
(Berlin: Dietz, 1930); and Waldemar von Grumbkov, "Sozialismus und Pazifismus," in
Mitarbeiter des Breslauer "Volkswacht," Grundsdtzliches zum Tageskampf: Festgabe fur
Eduard Bernstein (Breslau: Volkswacht, 1925).

19
20 Preparation
politician, political economist, and historian of the labor movement. Like
all controversial figures in political history, Bernstein's name has elicited
powerful emotional responses; among the socialist leaders of the early
twentieth century, we rarely find representatives in any country who did
not form a strong opinion about "Ede" Bernstein. Though they clashed
over the value of Bernstein's intellectual production, a close reading of the
less polemical accounts of his contemporary critics reveals unanimity
regarding two qualities of Bernstein's character: his personal integrity and
his wide-ranging intellectual interests.
His closest political friend and vehement theoretical opponent, Karl
Kautsky, captured the essence of Bernstein's personality when he wrote in
1920: "I admire both Bernstein's honesty and straightforwardness, which
always spurned mere posing and demagoguery, and his great sense of
justice."5 Even at the height of the Revisionist Controversy, when he
fundamentally disagreed with Bernstein, the legendary German party
leader, August Bebel, attested to "Bernstein's zeal for truth and consider-
able astuteness."6 Victor Adler, the founder of Austrian social democracy,
went even further:
Forcibly removed from practical party work, a sharp theoretical mind with
encyclopaedic knowledge, a fanatic for justice, and a skeptic of that most refined
breed which turns its skepticism upon itself and has an insatiable desire for
self-criticism, Bernstein has not only produced a series of excellent theoretical and
historical works but has also assumed one of the most important party functions,
that of criticizing its principles and tactics.7
Paul Lobe, the first social democratic Reichstag president, also acknowl-
edged the breadth of Bernstein's intellect when he noted that, "within the
limited framework of an essay, it is impossible to address all the policy
fields that Bernstein covered in the course of his long parliamentary
career."8 The prominent Kant biographer, Karl Vorlander, though
critical of Bernstein's epistemology and philosophy of science, still
admitted that it was "Bernstein's non-dogmatic intellectual engagement
that made possible a renewed discussion about the philosophical founda-
tions of socialism even beyond the borders of Germany." 9 Finally, in The
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber openly acknowl-
edged his intellectual debt to Bernstein by drawing on arguments from his
1895 book, History of Socialism, which definitively linked the secular
5
Karl Kautsky, "Eduard Bernstein," in Die Weltbiihne 16.2 (1920), p. 44.
6
Bebel to Bernstein (October 16, 1898) in MS, p. 320.
7
Victor Adler, "The Party Conference at Stuttgart," in ibid., p. 313.
8
Paul Lobe, "Eduard Bernstein als Breslauer Abgeordneter," in Helmut Hirsch, Der
"Fabier" Eduard Bernstein (Berlin: Dietz, 1977), p. 153.
9
Karl Vorlander, Kant und Marx: Ein Beitrag zur Philosophie des Sozialismus (Tubingen: J. C.
B. Mohr, 1926), p. 185.
 The making of a social democrat 21
asceticism of Protestantism and the accumulation process of capital:
"[Bernstein's] discussion is the first which has suggested these important
relationships."10
Most promising German intellectuals born in the middle of the
nineteenth century were assisted in their theoretical development by
privileged family backgrounds, the church, or the support of wealthy
mentors. This rule does not hold in Bernstein's case. Raising their son in
relative poverty, his parents lacked both the social connections and the
funds to send him to college. It was only because of the professional
opportunities represented in the rising nineteenth-century European
labor movement that Bernstein was afforded the chance to develop his
intellectual capacities.

Family origins and childhood

Born in Berlin on January 6, 1850, the seventh child of the Jewish railroad
engine-driver Jakob Bernstein and his wife Johanna, Eduard Bernstein
grew up in quite modest circumstances.11 At the time of the boy's birth,
Berlin was very much a provincial capital, surrounded by a protective wall
that had been erected in the eighteenth century by the Prussian King
Friedrich Wilhelm I in order to prevent mass desertion by his soldiers.
Jakob Bernstein's family was of Polish origin, and, like that of Karl
Marx, consisted of a long line of rabbis and talmudic scholars. Yet for the
previous two generations, the descendants of the Bernstein family had
turned away from Jewish scholarship and embraced secularism in the
form of trade, artisanship, and public service. The only intellectual in the
Bernstein family at the time of Eduard's birth was Jakob Bernstein's older
brother Aaron, who, according to orthodox Jewish tradition, was sent to
the rabbinical school at Fordon in West Prussia. However, after finishing
the required three years of rabbinical study, Aaron refused to take his final
examinations, and expressed his intention to embark on a more secular
journalistic career. Aaron Bernstein ultimately founded the widely read
newspaper, Berliner Volkszeiiung, and earned a considerable reputation as
a liberal journalist.
Moreover, Aaron emerged as an astute historian of the 1848 revolution,
in which he participated on the side of the losing liberal forces. A personal
friend of Alexander von Humboldt, he achieved considerable fame as the
10
Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons
(London: Unwin Hyman, 1930), p. 278.
11
Bernstein's autobiographical material is contained in his books, Von 1850 bis 1872:
Kindheit und Jugendjahre (Berlin: Erich Reiss, 1926); Sozialdemokratische Lehrjahre
(Berlin: Biicherkreis, 1928); My Years of Exile: Reminiscences of a Socialist, trans. Bernard
Miall (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1921); and ES.
22 Preparation
author of General Natural Science Books, a series of science textbooks
written for a lay readership. Reprinted many times, these books captured a
wide audience, including the young Albert Einstein, who later remarked
that he read them "with breathless exhilaration."12 The lucid style of
Aaron's work drew praise from many in the German scientific commu-
nity, ultimately earning him a honorary doctorate from the University of
Tubingen. Though close to left-liberal thinkers like Hermann Schulze-
Delitzsch, Aaron Bernstein remained largely indifferent to the political
cause of the labor movement.
The weakness of German liberalism has its roots in Germany's
Sonderweg toward modernity - its idiosyncratic social development, its
rapid industrialization while neglecting to destroy the pre-modern politi-
cal conditions underlying its social authoritarianism.13 Undoubtedly,
there existed some similarities between British and German nineteenth-
century forms of liberalism,14 but the latter's political agenda was
almost entirely consumed by the problems arising from the ongoing
process of nation-building. Unlike their British counterparts, German
liberals like Aaron Bernstein tended to neglect workers' issues, thus
allowing the rising labor movement to build its political self-understand-
ing around the "social question." Hence, when Eduard later publicly
called his uncle a "German petty bourgeois, ignorant of political econ-
omy," Aaron's initial interest in his nephew's political career quickly
waned.15 Yet, over time, Eduard's personality and even his political
outlook began to resemble his uncle's, for both men displayed "uncom-
promising honesty and courage, an intense ethical commitment, and a

12
Einstein cited in Julius Schops, Burgerliche Aufkldrung und liberates Freiheitsdenken: A.
Bernstein in seiner Zeit (Stuttgart: Burg, 1992), p. 247.
13
See, for example, Leonhard Krieger, The German Idea of Freedom (Boston: Beacon, 1957);
Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany; Lothar Gall, Geschichte des deutschen
Liberalismus (Koln: Kohlhammer, 1966); Barrington Moore Jr., Social Origins of Dictator-
ship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon,
1966); Stern, The Failure of Illiberalism; James Sheehan, German Liberalism in the
Nineteenth Century (Chicago: Chicago UP, 1978); Heinrich August Winkler, Liberalismus
und Antiliberalismus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979); David Blackbourn
and Geoff Ely, The Pecularities of German History (New York: Oxford UP, 1984); Dieter
Langewiesche, Liberalismus in Deutschland (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988); David Black-
bourn and Richard J. Evans, eds. The German Bourgeoisie (London: Routledge, 1991).
14
For conflicting views in the ongoing debate over the compatibility of German and British
forms of liberalism, see, for example, Geoff Eley, "Liberalism, Europe, and the
Bourgeoisie 1860- 1914," in ibid., pp. 293-317; Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Britain and
Germany 1800-1914. Two Developmental Paths towards Industrial Society (London, 1986);
Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge: Harvard U P , 1992);
and John Breuilly, Labour and Liberalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe: Essays in
Comparative History (Manchester: Manchester UP, 1992).
15
Schops, Burgerliche Aufkldrung und liberates Freiheitsdenken: A. Bernstein in seiner Zeit, pp.
277-278.
 The making of a social democrat 23
clear distaste for dogmatic doctrine and extreme forms of political
radicalism."16
The so-called "Jewish Residence Laws" requiring Jews who had not
been born in Berlin to depart the city after a year of residence, were still in
force in 1838, the year Jakob Bernstein settled in Berlin. Each year,
Eduard's father was officially obliged to "leave" the city of Berlin through
one city gate, only to return hours later through another one and present
himself to a different Prussian "gate official" who was unaware of his
recent "departure." At the time Eduard was born, the situation had only
slightly improved. Although Article 12 of the revised 1850 Prussian
Constitution established freedom of religion, a later article of the same
document established Christianity as the basis for "those institutions of
the state which deal with the practice of religion." In other words, Jews
were robbed of their religious equality by the very same document that
supposedly guaranteed it.17 Indeed, anti-Semitism was widespread in
Prussia, and Jews were barred from holding state office or pursuing higher
ranks in the military.
Like many German Jews at the time, Jakob Bernstein was not observ-
ant. He and his family rapidly assimilated, considering themselves
"Prussian-German patriots," refusing to speak Yiddish, and celebrating
Christian holidays like Christmas alongside the traditional Jewish High
Holidays. Rarely attending even the Reform Jewish synagogue, Jakob
extended to his children the rare privilege of choosing their own degree of
religious involvement.
In 1843, Jakob Bernstein joined Prussia's newly founded Berlin-Anhalt
Railroad Company, and soon distinguished himself as an employee with
an extraordinary sense of professional responsibility. In thirty years of
service as an engine driver, he never called in sick or missed even one day
of work! Though Jakob excelled at his job, he was nonetheless inept at
handling the family finances, which forced his wife Johanna to stretch the
food reserves in order to get by. This meant that meat dishes were a rarity
in the Bernstein household. When meat did appear on the table, most of it
went to Jakob, the family "provider," to sustain him in his physically
demanding labors. Most meals consisted of Eintopf, a thick stew made of
bread, potatoes, and green vegetables.
Both Jakob and Johanna were gentle parents with liberal views who -
unheard of in mid-nineteenth-century Prussia - only very rarely physically
disciplined their children. Little "Ede" learned early on that indulging in
coarse language was unacceptable to his parents. Unlike her husband,
Johanna Bernstein, nee Rosenberg, was a fragile woman who, weakened
16 17
Ibid., p. 278. EBy p. 9.
24 Preparation
by frequent childbirth, further sacrificed her physical health to demanding
housework and the exhausting care of her ten surviving children. More-
over, she was solely responsible for running the Bernstein household
affairs, which, given the family size, turned out to be more than a full-time
job. Calculating expenses, chopping wood, and keeping the fire going in
the stove alone were extremely demanding tasks for a woman who was
often too weak to climb the stairs at the end of the day.
Born in 1820, Johanna had lost her parents while still a child and gone
to live with relatives in Magdeburg, Saxony. Her aunt, a callous,
mean-spirited woman, saw in the girl a welcome object for exploitation
and frequently forced her to do housework to the point of physical
collapse. As soon as Johanna was old enough to find work on her own, she
left the Magdeburg household for good. Not long after her departure, she
met and fell in love with Jakob Bernstein. Like her husband, Johanna
showed some interest in politics, and took a strong liberal position during
the 1848 revolution. Indeed, it was she who kept a prized picture of her
revolutionary hero, Johann Jacoby, a liberal democrat who was later to
become a socialist and one of Eduard's great idols. Showing the litho-
graph to her son, Johanna impressed upon the boy that Jacoby was "a
great man and a champion of the people." 18
Yet, by the 1850s, the high political hopes of radical democrats like
Johann Jacobi had all but vanished. The main political objective of a
German revolution - the creation of a liberal constitution for a unified
German nation state - foundered in 1849 on the refusal of the Prussian
king to accept the crown of a constitutional German Empire that
drastically limited his powers. Unwilling to call for open resistance, the
delegates of the 1849 Frankfurt National Assembly returned home
empty-handed. Germany remained divided, and its aristocratic authori-
tarianism regained most of its former status in the ensuing decade of
reaction. In Prussia, where the conservative reaction was most successful,
liberalism was severely curtailed in the new 1850 Constitution. Espousing
"monarchical constitutionalism," the document permitted the hegemony
of the Crown independent of the consent of the people. In fact, the
patrimonial Prussian Staatsidea ("idea of the state") personified in the
monarch, precluded the legitimation of a politically constituted civil
society removed from the will of the king, making Prussian citizens once
again powerless subjects of an authoritarian military state.
Jacoby's liberal demands for universal suffrage were only partly fulfilled
in the unequal Prussian "Three-Class Suffrage" system, based solely on
the criterion of taxable wealth. In addition, government ministers were

18
Ibid., p. 3.
 The making of a social democrat 25
entirely responsible to the king, who appointed them without consulting
the Diet; the parliament's right to veto the budget rested on shaky
constitutional grounds; and the 1854 creation of an aristocratic Upper
House further weakened the powers of elected representatives. With liberal
democrats boycotting the "sham elections" of the late 1850s, conservative
political forces once again succeeded in dominating the political scene.
Disillusioned with politics and aging fast under the blows of her hard
life, Johanna Bernstein would succumb to tuberculosis at age forty-eight.
Like his mother, Eduard was a sickly child who, though intellectually
gifted, never received appropriate educational guidance from his parents.
Stunted in his physical growth, Eduard was referred to by neighbors and
family friends as "the small and weak boy." Doctors gave him only a few
years to live, even going so far as to refuse prescribing proper medication;
for, as they saw it, such expenses would be "nothing but waste." When
Johanna Bernstein asked one of them whether there might be some special
treatment that did not require medication and could still prolong her son's
life, the doctor replied: "Well, perhaps nature itself might help in the end
but, most of all, I'd recommend a sip of good Bavarian beer."19
Obviously, the doctor's advice must have been excellent, for "the small
and weak boy" ultimately reached the blessed age of eighty-two.

School years
Young Ede's school years seem to have been like those of most gifted, but
financially disadvantaged children. Tutored by his older brother Max,
Eduard was already able to read and write by the time he entered the first
grade. His pleasant character, honesty, and intellectual gifts soon caught
the attention of his teachers, who pressured Jakob Bernstein to provide his
son with an education beyond elementary school. One of Ede's teachers,
an ardent anti-Semitic Christian conservative, even attempted to per-
suade "das brave Kind" (the well-behaved child) to convert to Christian-
ity. Never considering religious matters a burning issue, the young
Bernstein refused the honor. As a teenager, Eduard came to doubt all
religious dogma, and he was particularly skeptical about the existence of a
personal god. When his mother died in 1868, his atheism became a
life-long conviction. Tormented by the idea that, since there was no
ultimate "beyond," he would never see his mother again, the young
Bernsteinfinallyresolved his mental anguish in the belief that his mother
would still live on in his memory.
Young Ede soon received a further taste of the power of religious
19
Bernstein, Von 1850-1872, p. 29.
26 Preparation
prejudice in the form of the common Prussian contempt for Judaism.
When his non-Jewish classmates found themselves intellectually sur-
passed by the gifted Eduard, they did not hesitate to vent their anger by
taunting him with cries of "Jew!" and "Dirty Jew!" Deeply distressed, Ede
sought after-school refuge in the arms of his father, who told the boy that
such insults were characteristic of the low intellectual abilities of his
friends, and advised him not take them seriously. In the long run,
however, there was no way for Eduard to escape his origins. Even words of
praise, like those of a well-meaning neighbor, served as forceful reminders
of his despised ethnic identity: "You Bernsteins aren't like 'real' Jews."20
Like most German Jews, the young Ede soon learned to put up with, and
accommodate to, a largely anti-Semitic society.
Eduard's continued academic success prompted his parents to make
great financial sacrifices in order to send him to Gymnasium, the
highest-level secondary school in Germany preparing students for univer-
sity study. In the course of his intellectual development, the boy soon
discovered that he had a penchant for pragmatic problem-solving and
analytical thinking, excelling particularly in mathematics, science, and
languages. In accord with his analytical gifts, Eduard also became a master
of chess, which he loved to play both with his peers and even with
interested adults. At the age of fourteen, he developed a great fondness for
theater, dance, and poetry almost overnight, and, much to the astonish-
ment of his uneducated working-class neighbors, took to reciting publicly
the long ballads of his beloved German poets, Schiller and Goethe.
Bernstein's love for Schiller would later strengthen his friendship with
Friedrich Engels, the one-time president of the "Schiller Association" in
Manchester, England. Drawn to the circus and amusement parks, Ede
spent long hours admiring intricate historical panoramas of great battles
through a spectroscope.
When funds for his son's education were finally exhausted, Jakob
Bernstein pleaded with the sixteen-year-old Eduard to leave Gymnasium
and pursue a lucrative trade. His dreams of becoming an eloquent poet
shattered, the good-natured boy obliged his father by entering the bank of
the brothers Guttentag in Berlin as an apprentice-clerk. Here, in a rather
lighthearted fashion, Bernstein grasped the intricacies of the bank and
insurance business. His considerable salary not only permitted him to
maintain himself, but also went a long way in helping to support his family.
But the novelty of learning the banking profession would soon be
dwarfed by far greater attractions. Having for a long time resisted the
influence of the numerous prostitutes crowding the night-time streets of

20
Ibid., p . 6 5 .
 The making of a social democrat 27
Berlin's red-light district, the prudish young Bernstein finally succumbed
to his curiosity. After his initial hesitancy, he came to enjoy his regular
visits. In this he was not unlike other young Prussian men whose "sexual
education" in the bordellos was regarded as a necessary preparation for
marriage.

The socialist
Rising nationalist sentiments in the wake of the 1859 Austro-Italian War,
and the accession to the throne of the less autocratic Prince Wilhelm,
facilitated an impressive resurgence of liberalism and its nationalist vision
in state and local elections. The newly founded "National Association"
{Nationalverein) reunited liberals and democrats along a broad consensus
program chiefly aimed at German unification. A few years later, Prussia's
successful 1866 war against the Austrian Empire again fanned national-
istic flames and enhanced popular support for a kleindeutsche German
unification under Prussian leadership.
No doubt, nationalism formed the sociopolitical context of Bernstein's
first political impressions. Already as a boy, Eduard had shown a mild
interest in war, but the 1866 military endeavor awakened in him the first
stirrings of a powerful patriotic sentiment. Hence, it is not surprising that
in 1870, at the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War, Bernstein was
immediately swept away by the public expression of anti-French feeling
pervading the Berlin streets. His Prussian chauvinism, however, quickly
gave way to more characteristic promptings of objective analysis and
tolerance, and he was soon arguing that his country's propaganda be
directed against the authoritarian governments of both Emperor Napo-
leon III and the Prussian king, not the "ordinary French people." For
publicly announcing his unpopular views, Bernstein was ejected from a
raucous Berlin tavern by a patriotic bouncer. But the encounter only
strengthened his disgust for extreme forms of nationalism in general, and
for the uncompromising militarism of Bismarck's government in particu-
lar. Once having grasped the dimensions of human suffering imposed by
war, Bernstein gradually moved toward a more detached and interna-
tionalist stance, no longer heeding the nationalistic articles of the German
press, and barely noticing the events surrounding the short-lived socialist
experiment of the 1871 Paris Commune.
At the same time, however, he developed an interest in Prussian
politics, following the shifting fortunes of the liberal forces in particular. In
the early 1860s, the Prussian Lower House, dominated by the German
Progress Party {Deutsche Fortschrittspartei), had been strong enough to
challenge the most blatant authoritarian features of monarchical constitu-
28 Preparation
tionalism. For a while it seemed that history had afforded the revolution-
ary forces of 1848 a second chance; King Wilhelm I was even ready to
abdicate. But instead of sweeping constitutional reforms came the "Blood
and Iron" tactics of the new Prussian Minister President, Prince Otto von
Bismarck.
Though insisting on the right of parliament to detail the hotly disputed
military budget, the Progress Party encountered in Bismarck a vigorous
opponent who did not hesitate to take considerable political risks by
suspending most constitutional rights and dissolving parliament for
lengthy periods.21 During the next four years, the Prussian Minister
President's repressive domestic tactics aimed at retaining undisputed
control for the Christian-monarchical-aristocratic order with its conser-
vative ideal of an authoritarian Stdndestaat ("corporate state"). At the
same time, Bismarck used the new mood of militaristic expansionism to
appeal for support from both anti-aristocratic industrialists and national-
istic liberals. Eventually, his extremely popular campaign against Den-
mark intimidated the majority of liberal deputies into accepting the 1866
Indemnity Bill, which formally ended the constitutional conflict in
Bismarck's favor.
This divisive vote marked the decline of German liberalism: in 1867, it
split into a progressive minority party and the right-wing "national-liberal
Party," which, in order to remain politically viable, was forced to continue
its cooperation with Bismarck during the next decade. The fact that the
national-liberals remained Germany's dominant "liberal" party until
1918 speaks for the pervasiveness of a conservative Weltanschauung22
Further secessionist movements split the liberals in 1880, 1884, and
1893, amplifying the political divisions then plaguing the liberal camp. Its
numerous factions remained hopelessly at odds with each other on issues
of constitutional reform, nationalism, and, most of all, on how to deal with
the rising working class.
Ever more identified with democratic liberalism, Bernstein founded a
small discussion circle of like-minded friends, naming it "Utopia" after
Thomas More's ideal Utopian society. The creation of "Utopia" co-
incided with Bismarck's 1871 establishment of the German Empire under
Prussian hegemony. Though formally a "constitutional monarchy," the
Reich's Prussian legal foundations gave the Imperial Government, ap-
pointed by the Kaiser, far greater powers than the elected Reichstag. The
key positions in the Empire's vast state bureaucracy and the powerful
21
See Giinther Roth, The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany (Totowa, NJ: The
Bedminster Press, 1963), pp. 21-22.
22
See James F. Harris, A Study in the Theory and Practice of German Liberalism: Eduard
Lasker, 1829-1884 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984).
 The making of a social democrat 29
imperial army tended to be occupied by aristocratic Junkers and conserva-
tive civil servants who stalwartly defend their privileges against liberal
pressures for reform. Maintaining the discriminatory electoral system in
Prussia, Bismarck used hisfirstyears as Imperial chancellor to spearhead
the founding of a "new" German Conservative Party based on the alliance
of agriculture and industry- the famous marriage of "Iron and Rye." This
renewed turn to conservatism, known as "konservative Sammlungspolitik"
solidified the reactionary mood of "illiberalism" which dominated the
Wilhelmine Empire and, according to Max Weber, permitted "an
economically sinking class" to retain its power and authority.23
Bernstein's left-leaning association soon explored the political possibili-
ties for fighting this powerful combination of surviving feudal elements,
civil servants, and a nationalist-conservative upper bourgeoisie. Ede's
interest in the industrial proletariat as an agent of social change was
kindled during a "Utopia" lecture on socialism given by Friedrich
Fritzsche, a seasoned political agitator and social democrat. Fritzsche
spoke eloquently on the "social question," conveying to his young
listeners the sentiments of a battle-tested worker who had been bitterly
disappointed by the inaction of German liberal parties, particularly on the
important issue of "workers' rights."
Already the 1848/49 constitutional debates over the social component
of the "catalogue of basic civil rights" (Grundrechte) had foreshadowed the
main ideological faultlines that would separate liberal forces for decades
to come. At the center of the dispute was the question of whether the Bill
of Rights should be extended to deal with the most visible social ills of a
rapidly industrializing society. In the years following, liberal attitudes
toward the social question began to crystallize around three distinct
positions. Center-right "classical" Manchester liberals argued for strict
adherence to laissez-faire economic policies, thus strongly denying the
state a major role in addressing existing social inequalities. The center-left
faction envisaged significant state regulations and moderate protectionist
policies for the sake of maintaining social and economic harmony. Finally,
the small left-liberal group of republicans and democrats not only
approved of state interference with the economy, but also demanded
universal, equal suffrage as the critical instrument in solving the social
question in a democratically constituted Germany of the future.24
In the 1860s, the social question expanded into the "workers" ques-
tion," with liberal intellectuals passionately debating the proper political
role of the proletariat. While the organizational distinctions between
23
Max Weber, Gesammelte Politische Schriften (Munich: Drei Mosken Verlag, 1921), p. 24.
On the topic of German "illiberalism," see Stern, The Failure of Illiberalism.
24
See Langewiesche, Liberalismus in Deutschland, p. 63.
30 Preparation
liberal and working-class associations were often blurred, many liberal
intellectuals warned against a "proletarization" of their movement. 25
Mostly restricting themselves to endorsing the formation of "liberal
interest coalitions" to bridge their internal differences, they maintained a
largely hostile posture toward the working class. Liberal political organiz-
ations like the Nationalverein refused membership to workers' associ-
ations, claiming that "workers should first think about raising their
economic status before demanding political rights." 26 Indeed, they were
reluctant to accede to the Fourth Estate's principal demand - the
abolition of unequal suffrage.27
Refusing to integrate working-class concerns into his liberal agenda, the
influential national liberal Johannes von Miquel appealed instead to a
class-transcending humanism, lecturing the proletariat on its duty to live
up to the social expectations of a "generous fatherland" which had
bestowed upon it the privilege of "allowing" it to vote at all.28 Even more
progressive liberal intellectuals like Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch and
Julius Vahlteich, who dedicated their energy to founding and supporting
workers' self-help and educational organizations, remained skeptical of
the desirability of political coalitions between liberals and workers, thus
driving sensitive and intelligent young "protoliberals" with a working-
class background like Bernstein into the hands of proletarian agitators.
As a result of Fritzsche's talk, Bernstein resolved to keep a close watch
on workers' organizations. The government's well-publicized 1872
"Leipzig High Treason Trials" against Wilhelm Liebknecht, 29 August
Bebel,30 and other leading members of the so-called "Eisenacher" faction
of German social democracy afforded Bernstein a fine opportunity to
observe working-class politics in action. At the time of the trial, Bebel's
small socialist party was a fast-growing organization with its own party
organ, called Der Volksstaat.
Bebel and his comrades were charged with the "crimes" of publicly
25
Jiirgen Kocka, "Problems of Working-Class Formation in Germany," in Ira Katznelson
and Aristide Zolberg, eds. Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth Century Patterns in Western
Europe and the United States (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986), pp. 333-336.
26
Hermann Schulze-Delitzsch cited in Langewiesche, Liberalismus in Deutschland, p. 115.
27
Gregory M. Luebbert, Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy (New York: Oxford UP,
1991), p. 116.
28
M i q u e l cited in L a n g e w i e s c h e , Liberalismus in Deutschland, p . 1 1 8 .
29
For biographical material on Liebknecht, see Raymond H. Dominick III, Wilhelm
Liebknecht and the Founding of the German Social Democratic Party (Chapel Hill: University
of North Carolina Press, 1982).
30
For literature on and by Bebel, see, for example, August Bebel, Aus meinem Leben, 3 vols.
(Berlin: Dietz, 1953); Helmut Hirsch, August Bebel. Sein Leben in Dokumenten, Reden und
Schriften (Koln-Berlin: Dietz, 1968); W. H. Maehl, August Bebel: Shadow Emperor of the
German Workers (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1980); and Francis L.
Carsten, August Bebel und die Organisation der Massen (Berlin: Siedler, 1991).
 The making of a social democrat 31
supporting a quick end to the Franco-Prussian War and daring to vote
against the Prussian annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. As the trial unfolded,
Bernstein's natural sense of justice was evoked by Bebel's and Lieb-
knecht's breathtaking defense speeches - true masterpieces of romantic
rhetoric - which almost invariably ended with their professed "readiness
to die for the noble goals of social democracy."31 The defendants' ethical
convictions and internationalist stance so kindled Bernstein's interest in
socialism that it took him only a short time to acquaint himself with the
main writings of the great working-class thinkers, Ferdinand Lassalle,
Eugen Diihring, and Karl Marx.
August Bebel was released from his brief prison term a few months after
the trial. Eager to meet the young, charismatic party leader in person,
Bernstein decided to attend a lecture on socialism which Bebel was
presenting to the North-Berlin Workers' Association. Once again, the
combination of Bebel's extraordinary abilities as a public speaker and his
modest working-class appearance proved immensely appealing to the
budding radical. Openly criticizing Bismarck's conservative "oppressor
state," Bebel fearlessly reinforced his reputation among the Junkers who
had dubbed him "the shameless loud-mouth" (der unverschdmte
Schreier).32 Yet, Bebel also turned his wrath against liberals who had
suggested that the best way to improve the lot of the industrial proletariat
was both to increase the national budget's social expenditures and to
challenge wealthy philanthropists to ease their social conscience by means
of charitable donations.33 In fact, Bebel was referring to those more
enlightened liberals who realized that the process of industrialization,
which had unfolded in Germany with such extraordinary speed, was
continuing to sharpen class divisions and might provoke a social revolution
which would prevent their desired course of gradual political liberalization.
In 1872, such socially conscious liberal academics under the leadership
of the renowned economist Gustav Schmoller, founded the influential
Vereinfur Sozialpolitik, whose members became known by the pejorative
label of their working-class opponents - the "socialists of the lectern"
(Kathedersozialisteri) ,34 The Verein was a non-party organization that had
provided an intellectual home to two generations of progressive aca-
demics like Lujo Brentano and Max Weber. Its members disavowed
31
Liebknecht cited in Beatrix W. Bouvier, Franzosische Revolution und deutsche Arbeiter-
bewegung (Bonn: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1982), p. 250.
32
This nickname was coined by the Prince Hohenlohe.
33
See, for example, Georg Fesser, Linksliberalismus und Arbeiterbezvegung: Die Stellung der
Deutschen Fortschrittspartei zur Arbeiterbewegung 1861-1866 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag,
1976).
34
The term was coined in 1871 by Heinrich Oppenheim, a "Manchesterite" writing for the
influential liberal newspaper Nationalzeitung.
32 Preparation
extreme laissez-faire Manchesterism and increasingly sought to address
the social question with a combination of state regulations, the establish-
ment of binding collective bargaining procedures, and the strengthening
of workers' self-help cooperatives.
Finding himself wholeheartedly agreeing with Bebel's skeptical posi-
tion on the Verein liberals, Bernstein decided to join the "Eisenacher"
party on the spot. Presented to the party leader as the nephew of the
prominent liberal publisher Aaron Bernstein, and thus a "special catch,"
the young Bernstein was duly impressed when, during their brief conver-
sation, Bebel boldly and confidently predicted that capitalism would
inevitably "collapse" in "at the latest, twenty years." 35 Only a year later,
Europe was hit by the 1873 Great Depression, which continued to
smolder for two economically difficult decades. This event contributed
much to the almost religious belief of many social democrats that Bebel's
great Kladderadatsch - the breakdown of bourgeois society as predicted in
Marx's and Engels The Communist Manifesto - was just around the
corner. On the other hand, with the onset of the Great Depression most
liberal advocates of social reform found themselves caught between the
contempt of an independent, democratic labor movement and Bis-
marck's increasing scorn of liberal principles, particularly his increasing
disenchantment with free-trade policies. No longer politically dependent
on their support for helping to forge a German Reich, Bismarck could
now return to his natural inclination of maintaining a semi-feudal
authoritarian rule amidst the dynamics of a modern industrial state. The
destruction of a small remaining liberal-democratic political force could
now be completed, signalling the end of a short-lived liberal age in
Germany.36
Facing the equally dismal options of either risking a continued cooption
of their movement by Bismarck or their likely political defeat, the
national-liberals chose the former. Even the Catholic Center Party,
weakened by the years of Bismarck's Kulturkampf, caved in. By the end of
the 1870s, the remarkable realignment of German political forces was
under way. The conservative "Black-Blue Alliance" which included
heavy industry, large landowners, parts of the conservative peasantry, the
military, and most of the state bureaucracy, began to fall into place. Beset
by internal division and self-doubt, and finding themselves outman-
oeuvered by a shrewd chancellor who had appropriated their liberal
kleindeutsch dream for his own conservative constituency, progressives
conceded defeat and abandoned their demands for constitutional reform.
35
ES, p. 6.
36
See Abraham J. Peck, Radicals and Reactionaries: The Crisis of Conservatism in Wilhelmine
Germany (Washington, D. C : University Press of America, 1978), p. 4.
 The making of a social democrat 33
Increasingly disillusioned with domestic politics, the Kathedersozialist
Lujo Brentano summed up the hopeless position of liberalism:
How sad are our current affairs. I would prepare a critique of Bismarck if I thought
it would do any good, but after careful consideration I am convinced that I should
keep my resolution not to concern myself with contemporary affairs any longer. If I
could read Assyrian, I'd start a book on the ancient Assyrian economy, if only to
forget the economic policies of modern Germany.37
Moreover, liberalism's inability to reach the working class, and the failure
to cross confessional lines prevented the liberals from consolidating
political power at a crucial historical juncture. As a result, the German
bourgeoisie remained woefully divided into separate reform movements
throughout the Wilhelmine Era. Unable to match its Catholic and
socialist counterparts in developing a fairly solid political subculture
based on a coherent Weltanschauung, German liberalism continued its
decline as a major political force.38
Having moved on to a new and better paid job as a bank clerk at S. & L.
Rothschild in Berlin, Bernstein, the new socialist convert, could now
afford to engage in extensive volunteer work on behalf of the party.
Though his talents as an agitator and public speaker were not overwhelm-
ing, his committed work ethic helped him to rise quickly through the party
ranks. Ignaz Auer, the future SPD secretary, took an immediate liking to
his fellow Berliner. Standing in for Bernstein's older brother Max, who
did not share Ede's enthusiasm for working-class politics, Auer imparted
to his protege the ancient arts of rhetoric and public speaking. Eventually,
Bernstein was placed on the party's "lecturer list," which guaranteed him
several speaking engagements each month. Bernstein never forgot the
kindness shown to him by his first mentor, and he published a touching
eulogy after Auer's premature death in 1907.39
Gradually initiated into the intricacies of party life, Bernstein spent
entire weekends on the stump, often forced to defend his socialist
convictions against thefistsand stones of reactionary small-town crowds.
Prussian police laws made it easy for local authorities to use the flimsiest
excuses to close down public gatherings organized by the labor move-
ment. Yet, despite such hardships, the young orator persevered, gradually
emerging as a leadingfigurein a growing political movement that offered
industrial workers more than simple membership in a voluntary associ-
ation. Indeed, an increasingly self-conscious and confident German
Social Democratic Party was preaching a new and all-encompassing
37
Brentano cited in James J. Sheehan, The Career of Lujo Brentano: A Study of Liberalism and
Social Reform in Imperial Germany (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 94.
38
See Langewiesche, Liberalismus in Deutschland, p. 164.
39
Eduard Bernstein, Ignaz Auer, Eine Gedenkschrift (Berlin: Vorwarts, 1907).
34 Preparation
Weltanschauung that was consciously set apart from liberalism, its rival
progressive tradition.

German social democracy from Lassalle's ADAVto

Engels' Anti-Diihring
The movement to which Bernstein would devote his life began as a
conglomeration of joint artisans' and laborers' educational associations
(Arbeiterbildungsvereine) - a forceful reminder of the liberal roots of social
democracy. After all, voluntary "free associations" were the crucial forms
of social organization that had allowed the early liberal bourgeoisie to
coordinate its social struggle against the centralized, corporatist Stdnde of
the semi-feudal German states. It was only in the wake of the 1848
revolutions that workers' associations consciously formulated political
demands for representative democracy and civil rights in the name of the
"Fourth Estate." 40 After the collapse of the Frankfurt National Assembly
and the victory of conservative forces, workers' associations were fre-
quently outlawed. Thus, the political forces of social democracy remained
dormant over the next fifteen years.
But as liberal forces began to gain ground in the late 1850s, localized
labor associations sprang up once again. Philosophically, the new socialist
movement of the 1860s was an eclectic plant, growing on soil previously
fertilized by the ideas of Utopians like Wilhelm Weitling and Karl Griin;
progressive liberals like Carl Rodbertus and Eugen Duhring; revolution-
ary democrats like Georg Biichner and Moses Hess; idealist state socialists
like Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Ferdinand Lassalle; and historical
materialists like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.41
Because they were forged in political isolation in London, Marx's and
Engels' political ideas initially had only a very limited influence on the
German workers' movement. In fact, throughout the first three-quarters
of the nineteenth century, Marx's and Engels' writings were very little
known in their native land.42 Instead, the main players in the German
40
See Elfi Pracht, Parliamentarismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie 1867-1914 (Pfaffen-
weiler: Centaurus Verlag, 1990).
41
For detailed accounts of the early years of German social democracy, see, for example,
Roger Morgan, The German Social Democrats and the First International, 1864-1872
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1965); Richard W. Reichard, Crippled from Birth: German
Social Democracy 1844-1870 (Ames, IO: Iowa State UP, 1969); Wolfgang Abendroth,
Aufstieg und Krise der deutschen Sozialdemokratie (Frankfurt: Stimme Verlag, 1969);
Susanne Miller, Das Problem der Freiheit im Sozialismus (Berlin: Dietz, 1974); Gary P.
Steenson, "Not One Man! Not One Penny P' German Social Democracy, 1863-1914
(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1981); and Miller and Pothoff, A History of
German Social Democracy.
42
For an excellent recent discussion of the reception of Marx's work in those years, see
 The making of a social democrat 35
labor movement of the 1860s were radical members of the bourgeoisie like
Friedrich Albert Lange and Johann Jacoby, who presided over local
workers' associations and cooperatives. Initially, they emphasized eman-
cipatory interests linking the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but as the
labor movement acquired numerical strength, its strategic tendency to
ally itself with liberal-democratic demands was frustrated by the Liberals'
unwillingness to protect the interests of workers in the Reichstag of the
North German Federation.43 As a result, working-class organizations
began to draw away from liberal influences. Lange, for example, be-
moaned the short-sighted policies of the Liberals, adding that workers
were already showing much more interest in political papers that stressed
the conflictual nature between the two classes - a phenomenon that, no
doubt, had its origins in the poor political experience of workers with
liberal parties.44 Workers' associations became quickly radicalized, their
leaders insisting on their organizational independence from "bourgeois
forces."45
This trend to regard all non-working classes as "one reactionary mass"
was further amplified by Ferdinand Lassalle, a flamboyant lawyer,
philosopher, bon vivant, self-appointed "leader of the toiling masses," and
Marx's main ideologicalrivalin the German workers' movement. The son
of a wealthy Jewish merchant, Lassalle had attracted national attention
when he successfully represented the Countess Sophie von Hatzfeldt in
her divorce and property suit against her Junker husband. Soon thereafter,
Lassalle proved to possess more than mere slick courtroom manners when
he wrote a number of impressive studies on legal and economic philos-
ophy. Borrowing heavily from Marx's economic ideas without acknowl-
edging his sources, Lassalle revelled in the role of a modern-day demo-
cratic tribune. His famous lectures on the Labor Question were well
attended; and his 1863 pamphlet, Open Address, commanded an almost
mystical reputation as "revelatory scripture" in most workers' circles.
Disregarding Marx's envious tirades directed against his "superficial
philosophical eclecticism" and his "unbearable arrogance," Lassalle
merrily continued promoting his own reputation at least as much as he did
his socialist cause. Before long his rhetorical skills, amorous adventures,
and flashy political manoeuvers had coalesced into the populistic "Las-
salle Legend." Despite his flaunted anti-aristocratic rhetoric, Lassalle
Steenson, After Marx, Before Lenin, pp. 47-107.
43
See Luebbert, Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy, pp. 117-118.
44
Lange cited in Peter Irmer, "Friedrich A. Lange - ein politischer Agitator in der
deutschen Arbeiterbewegung," in J. H. Knoll and J. H. Schops, eds. Friedrich Albert
Lange, Leben und Werk (Duisburg: Walter Braun Verlag, 1975), p. 13.
45
See, for example, Shlomo Na'aman, "F. A. Lange in der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung,"
in ibid., pp. 20-55; and August Bebel, Aus meinem Leben (Berlin: Dietz, 1986).
36 Preparation
used his numerous connections to influential Junkers, acquired with the
help of the Countess, to suggest shady political "bargains" to Chancellor
Bismarck himself. It is an impressive testimony to Lassalle's considerable
political talent that the "Iron Chancellor," who was not noted for praising
his opponents, called the socialist leader a "remarkable leader personal-
ity" with "obvious nationalist and royalist convictions." 46
In 1863, Lassalle founded the "General German Workers' Associ-
ation" (ADAV), the first German mass-based labor organization. Equally
denouncing liberal, conservative, and Junker forces, he observed with
great satisfaction that his political ideas had taken root in the fertile soil of
the German labor movement. At the core of his social theory was the
demand for universal suffrage as the decisive means for the self-emancipa-
tion of the proletariat, followed by the idea of organizing the modern
production process along the lines of decentralized producer cooperatives
which, supported by the state, would guarantee workers access to the "full
value of their labor." In Lassalle's opinion, such producer cooperatives
would ease the peaceful transition of capitalism to a new society based
upon a socialist mode of production. Mixing his anti-liberal, Hegel-
influenced theory of state with a good dose of J. G. Fichte's social
philosophy and Marx's emphasis on the redemptive power of the
proletariat, Lassalle succeeded in forming the eclectic nucleus of a distinct
labor ideology. Though never exceeding 20,000 members, Lassalle's
organization attracted engaged workers who represented, as he put it,
"the rock on which the socialist church will be built."
In 1864, his brilliant career was cut short by a bullet fired at him in a
duel over a failed love affair with a seventeen-year-old countess. The
romantic circumstances surrounding Lassalle's premature death at the
age of thirty-nine enhanced his status overnight from that of a "mere"
hero of the proletariat to the tragic messianic martyr of the fledgling
German labor movement. In fact, Bernstein would later seek to dispel
these romantic myths. However, while the "Lassalle Legend" continued
to spread, his political movement wilted. The absence of a charismatic
leader combined with the organizational ineptitude and heavy-handed
authoritarian style of Johann-Baptiste Schweitzer, the new chairman, led
to the slow dissolution of the ADAV. It is conceivable that Lassalle's early
death prevented the development of a national-socialist movement that
would have thwarted the emergence of Marx's less state-oriented social-
ism.47
In 1869, the Marxist "Eisenacher" socialists - the faction Bernstein
joined in 1872 - emerged from the "Congress of German Workers'
46
EB, pp. 10-11.
47
Steinberg, Sozialismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie, p. 27.
 The making of a social democrat 37
Associations" (VDAV) as the ideological and political rivals of the
"Lassalleans." The Eisenachers were led by Bernstein's youthful hero,
August Bebel, and his equally charismatic brother-in-arms Wilhelm
Liebknecht, a proud descendant of Martin Luther. A close personal friend
of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Liebknecht had spent thirteen years in
exile in London before returning to Germany in the early 1860s. Unlike
Bebel, who took organizational matters in hand, Liebknecht, keenly aware
of the need for a unifying worldview that would set workers apart from the
liberal demands of the "bourgeoisie," was more interested in theoretical
issues. Seeking to give the Eisenachers an easily understandable ideologi-
cal direction, Liebknecht created his own vulgarized version of
"Marxism," which sometimes drew harsh critiques from the founders in
London. Instead of being served Lassallean exhortations, the working
class was now being enticed by a new dictum: "Marx is Allah and
Liebknecht is his prophet."48 Engels soon realized that Liebknecht's
effective attacks on competing socialist schools corresponded to his own
main objective: the marketing of a Marxist worldview as the only brand of
socialism corresponding to modern social and economic conditions.
Pronouncing with almost apodicticfinalitythe fate of capitalism in the
memorable lines of their famous 1847 Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels could have hardly imagined the enormous influence
of their short pamphlet on generations of theorists and activists of the
labor movement. In connecting justice with science, idealist romanticism
with hard-headed empiricism, and highly emotional polemics with a
detached analysis of early industrial society, the almost prosaic language
of this perhaps most powerful political treatise in modern history
effortlessly incorporated the most audacious intellectual developments of
the nineteenth century. Most of all, its authors emphasized over and over
again what they considered to be their most distinctive contribution to
socialist theory: the scientific demonstration of the dialectical process of
capitalism's self-destruction, "objectively" leading to the coming of a
socialist order.
Finding the principles of revolutionary Marxism more in line with both
the existing sociopolitical conditions in the Empire and his disdain of the
bourgeoisie, Liebknecht teamed up with Bebel, the young chairman of the
Leipzig Workers' Educational Association, to found Europe's most
successful labor party. Using the power vacuum created by Lassalle's
death to their own advantage, Bebel and Liebknecht achieved within six
years what socialist theorists had envisioned for decades: the organiza-
tional and ideological unification of the German labor movement. Acting
48
See Karl Kautsky, Erinnerungen und Erorterungen, ed. Benedikt Kautsky (The Hague:
Mouton & Co., I960), p. 374.
38 Preparation
against Engels' advice, and relying on his own remarkable political
instincts, Bebel succeeded in bringing together the two warring labor
associations.
Having grown tired of the suicidal infighting that threatened the
existence of the entire movement, Bebel was willing to compromise the
purity of Marxist theory in order to enhance political effectiveness.
Bernstein supported his party leader and encouraged him to follow his
strategy against the resistance put up by the founders in London:
"Without indulging in delusions about the Lassalleans it has become clear
that we have to make concessions to them." 49
At the famous 1875 Gotha Party Conference, which Bernstein attend-
ed as an Eisenacher delegate, the two socialist parties merged into an
effective national "party of the proletariat" - the German Social Demo-
cratic Workers' Party (SDAP), which later dropped the word "Workers"
from its title. Liebknecht, one of the few recognized Eisenacher authori-
ties on matters of political theory, was commissioned to draft a new party
program.50 Although the "unification program" of Gotha represented a
well-designed theoretical compromise drawing most of its inspiration
from Marxist ideas, it met with stern disapproval from Marx and Engels.
In their view, it had failed to rid itself of the "fundamentally flawed
influence of Lassalle," notably his emphasis on "the iron law of wages"
and his demand for "the establishment of state-aided socialist producer
cooperatives under the control of the working people."51
The ideological discussions surrounding the Gotha Program, however,
were not the first socialist debates on matters of political theory. Already in
1873, Bernstein had exhibited his lifelong talent for stirring up trouble.
The subject of the dispute was Eugen Diihring, a radical economist and
philosopher, who was to lose his academic post at the University of Berlin
in 1877 because of his "anti-Prussian" political views. Seeking to unite
positivism and idealism in his fierce philosophical attack against church
and state, Diihring followed in the intellectual footsteps of the American
economist Henry Carey. Ultimately, Diihring developed an eclectic
theory culminating in the concept of "intersubjective morality" in
"socialitary systems" of the future. Like Lujo Brentano, Diihring sup-
ported trade unions as the chief instrument for abolishing social inequities
based on "wage-slavery."52
49
Bernstein cited in EB, p. 16.
50
For Liebknecht's role in drafting the Gotha Program, see Bernstein, Sozialdemokratische
Lehrjahre, pp. 45-47.
51
Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program," in Robert C. Tucker, The Marx-Engels
Reader, 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), pp. 525-541.
52
E u g e n D i i h r i n g , Careys Umwdlzung der Volkszvirtschaftlehre und Sozialwissenschaft
(Munich: Fleischmann, 1865); and Cursus der National und Sozialokonomie (Leipzig:
 The making of a social democrat 39
Enthusiastically approving of Diihring's latest book, A Course in
Political Economy and Socialism, in which the blind private scholar
(Privatgelehrter) had vehemently attacked the allegedly "scientific" foun-
dations of Marxian economics, Bernstein bought several copies of
Duhring's earlier work and sent them to a number of leading socialists.53
In particular, Bernstein seemed attracted to the Privatgelehrter''s eclectic
molding of liberalism, science, ethics, and reformism into an attractive
alternative position situated between Marx's Hegelian "abstractions" and
Lassalle's anti-liberal state socialism. In his youthful enthusiasm for
Duhring's left-liberal ideals, Bernstein was even willing to suspend his
judgment on the scholar's virulent anti-Semitism. Paying him several
visits, the "Jew, Bernstein" asked for, and received, personal instruction
from the sworn enemy of "Jewish socialism."
Moreover, Bernstein had convinced himself that Duhring's books
represented highly effective pieces of socialist propaganda. Bebel agreed.
Considering Duhring's latest book a well-written treatise, Bebel, too,
praised his arguments from a pragmatic point of view: "I couldn't care less
about the method as long as it advances our cause."54 He even published a
glowing article in Der Volksstaat, announcing Duhring as the "new
communist."55 It is a testimony to the German labor movement's
theoretical weakness in the early 1870s that both men felt that the ideas of
Duhring and Marx could be reconciled. Only the doctrinal watchdog,
Liebknecht, recognized the potential harm a "liberal variant" of socialism
could inflict upon the ideological unification of the movement under
Marxist hegemony.
Much to the surprise of his less sophisticated comrades, however, "OP
Liebknecht" proved incapable of countering Duhring's intellectual at-
tacks from a seasoned Marxist point of view. Eager to avoid further
embarrassment, he instead pleaded with Marx's "real prophet" - Fried-
rich Engels - to lead the charge against Duhring's "heresies." Engels
grudgingly obliged with a series of articles in Der Volksstaat, which, save
for a few hard-core Lassalleans, drew an enthusiastic response from the
membership. Later collected in a book commonly known asAnti-Duhring,
Engels' essays proved to be the magic potion for exorcizing the spectre of
"eclecticism" from the party.
Rivaled in its popularity only by Bebel's 1879 Women under Socialism
and Karl Kautsky's 1891 Das Erfurter Programm, the shortened version of

Reisland, 1925).
53
Eugen Duhring, Kritische Geschichte der Nationalokonomie und des Sozialismus, 4th ed.
(Leipzig: Naumann, 1900).
54
Bebel cited in Bernstein, ES, p. 10.
55
Gustav Mayer, Friedrich Engels (New York: Howard Fertig, 1969), p. 237.
40 Preparation
Engels' Anti-Duhring, entitled Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, created,
almost overnight, a simplified, easily understandable version of the
Marxist "communist world outlook."56 Besides giving the German labor
movement a firm ideological foundation, Anti-Duhring imparted to
socialist theorists like Kautsky and Bernstein a strong sense of mission,
which would be invaluable for their connection to the movement and the
further popularization of Marxist thought. Before long, scores of new
party pamphlets appeared, simplifying Engels' arguments even further.
Indeed, the "General" (as Engels was called by his followers) had
manged to condense the rather obscure themes in Capital into a few main
points: the inevitable breakdown of capitalism; the vengeance of history;
and the end of all class struggles in the coming rule of the proletariat. To
those workers who readily embraced its deterministic logic, Engels'
"communist world outlook" offered a distinct sense of class solidarity and
a common political language upon which to build institutional support.
Most importantly, however, it helped eclipse the philosophical eclecti-
cism, as well as any remaining vestiges of "Lassalleanism," in the German
labor movement.
56
Engels, Anti-Duhring, in MECW25, p. 8. For an insightful analysis of the "theological"
aspects of Marxism, see George Lichtheim, "The Concept of Ideology," History and
Theory 4.2 (1965), pp. 172-173; and Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the Working-Class
Mentality in Germany, 1887-1912.
 Persecution and exile

Bismarck's anti-socialist laws

The publication of Engels' Anti-Duhring and the quick dissemination of
its main ideas was but one of several reasons for the inordinately swift
enshrinement of revolutionary Marxism as the gospel of the German labor
movement. The tumultuous 1880s provided three additional elements
needed for the ultimate triumph of Marxist doctrine: firstly, possessing
the necessary instincts required for organizational success, young Marx-
ists like Eduard Bernstein easily acquired the key theoretical and political
positions of the rapidly expanding labor movement. Secondly, and more
importantly, the eventual hegemony of Marxist ideology was the unin-
tended result of the Bismarck government's political persecution of social
democracy. Thirdly, Germany's prolonged economic recession coupled
with the political decline of German liberalism seemed to bear out Marx's
grand vision. Indeed, Marxist ideology would have never planted its roots
so firmly into the soil of German social democracy had not the actual
socioeconomic conditions in the 1880s corresponded to its revolutionary
message.
In 1878, Chancellor Bismarck used two assassination attempts on the
Kaiser to create a frantic political climate which allowed him - with the
votes of the national-liberals- to introduce a set of so-called "anti-socialist
laws," outlawing public meetings of the SPD and closing down most of its
party publications. True to his favorite anti-1848 slogan, "The only
effective weapons against democrats are soldiers," Bismarck masterfully
employed powerful nationalist symbols in his all-out war against the
socialist "fellows without a fatherland" (vaterlandslose Geselleri), who
routinely refused to join their colleagues in parliament in their customary
salute to the Imperial insignia. Wasn't it obvious that the "Reds" were
behind the plot to kill the Kaiser if they openly praised the "heroic efforts"
of the 1871 Paris Communards, thus embracing "the gospel of those
murderers and incendiaries"?1 Employing what has been described as the
1
Bismarck quoted in Roth, The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany, p. 87.

41
42 Preparation
technique of "negative integration/' Bismarck developed a strategy of
political rule that made use of a sociopsychic opposition between
"in-groups" and "out-groups" and thus stylised internal conflicts so as to
lead a majority of elements "loyal to the Empire" against a minority of
"enemies of the Empire." As Hans-Ulrich Wehler noted, the "latter had
to be made to appear a 'serious danger' without ever posing any real threat
to the system" and "the various coalitions of groups loyal to the Empire
were held together primarily by their enmity towards a common foe - in
other words, on a negative basis."2
Wisely judging their constituency as too small in number to challenge
the governmental reprisals on the streets, the leaders of the German labor
movement chose to dissolve "officially" their centralized party organiz-
ation while continuing illegal underground meetings. Emboldened by the
lack of resistance, the police stepped up their activities and began to exile
prominent social democrats from their home towns. The full breadth of
the social ramifications of Bismarck's initiative on the lives of socialist
activists was gradually revealed within the next twelve months. Under
immense police pressure, even small local party organizations were forced
to dissolve. Hundreds of party functionaries, members, and sympathizers
lost their jobs, and, as Bebel reported angrily, many "comrades were
driven from their homes like mangy dogs." 3
Until the lapse of the anti-socialist laws twelve years later, some 352
political associations were dissolved and 1,229 publications, including
104 newspapers and periodicals, were banned.4 The few remaining
socialist publications had to endure constant governmental interference
and heavy censorship. Crippled in its ability to recruit new members, the
SPD leadership nonetheless secretly founded a central "illegal" party
organ, Der Sozialdemokrat. The journal's main task consisted of reporting
on the repressive situation in Germany, thus keeping socialist under-
ground networks informed and defiant. To ease the pressure on editors
and contributors, Bebel suggested the editorship of the paper be moved to
politically safe Switzerland, where it was put together and printed. Scores
of socialist volunteers smuggled thousands of copies out of Switzerland
and distributed them illegally among members of the German working
class and their bourgeois sympathizers.
Although Bismarck had shrewdly resisted the temptation to revoke the
Reichstag mandates of the social democratic representatives for fear of

2
Hans-Wehler, The German Empire 1871-1918 (Dover, NH: Berg, 1985), p. 91.
3
August Bebel cited in Julius Braunthal, History of the International, 3 vols., trans. Henry
Collins, Peter Ford, and Kenneth Mitchell (New York: Praeger, 1980), vol. I, p. 260.
4
Alex Hall, Scandal, Sensation and Social Democracy: The SPD Press and Wilhelmine Germany
1890-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1977), p. 14.
 Persecution and exile 43
turning them into political "martyrs," the party leadership quickly
grasped that their "official" meetings in parliament were ill suited for a
discussion of the party's internal affairs. In order to prevent the alienation
of the parliamentarian Fraktion from the party base, the SPD leadership
resolved to conduct secret party congresses on foreign soil. During the
years of persecution, the party managed to organize three such meetings
in Switzerland and Denmark, which proved to be invaluable for con-
solidating and boosting morale of the German labor movement. All
prominent members of the SPD - some living abroad in exile - were
reunited and could therefore develop a coordinated strategy of under-
ground resistance.
Already at their first secret party conference, held in the romantic
surroundings of Castle Wyden in Switzerland, the delegates had the
unpleasant task of debating the fate of two prominent members who had
repeatedly challenged the party's resolution to protect its remaining
Reichstag mandates by sticking to a "policy of strict legality" in Germany.
Johann Most and Wilhelm Hasselmann dismissed the party's strategy as
"cowardice" and presented themselves as the only genuine revolutionary
opposition to Bismarck's rule of the "iron fist." As Henry Tudor
emphasizes, the debate over these two "renegades" afforded Bernstein
one of his first opportunities to spell out a carefully "genuine" Marxist
position in print.5
Ultimately, the SPD delegates in Wyden recognized that it was better to
react to the anarchist challenge with drastic measures than to engage in a
drawn-out discussion that would give Most and Hasselmann the oppor-
tunity to propagate their views even further. Expelled from the party at the
Wyden Congress, Most emigrated to London and founded his own
journal, Die Freiheit (Liberty), which wedded the demands of The Commu-
nist Manifesto with anarchist calls for extraparliamentary, revolutionary
action. Hasselmann, a previously well-respected SPD member of parlia-
ment, shared Most's fate, and soon began openly to disavow his former
party by aligning himself with obscure Russian Nihilists.6
Bernstein managed to attend all three underground party meetings as a
delegate - the 1883 party congress in Copenhagen only after a long and
dangerous trip under a false name. There is no doubt that his political and
early editorial activities benefited enormously from these opportunities to
meet and personally interact with the most dedicated and brilliant
representatives of German social democracy. Moreover, these travels also
allowed him to establish personal contacts with other leading European
social democrats, like Jules Guesde, Benoit Malon, Paul Lafargue, and
5
Tudor, "Introduction," in MS, pp. 4-5.
6
DDS, p. 49.
44 Preparation
William Morris. Most of all, the young socialist energies thrived on the
genuine atmosphere of solidarity and cooperation displayed at these
memorable underground meetings: "All were filled with the thought, 'We
belong together and must support each other.'" 7
Bismarck quickly adapted to the continued political agitation of the
labor movement. He was successful in planting Prussian police informers
at the SPD's "illegal" conferences, while at the same time undermining
the appeal of social democracy by buying its cooperation.8 Throughout
the 1880s, he introduced several remarkable pieces of social legislation,
supposedly for the "benefit of the German working class": health
insurance (1883), accident insurance (1884), and old age and disability
insurance (1889).
His double-pronged strategy of persecution and reform did indeed
contribute to the increasing polarization of the SPD into a "moderate"
and a "radical" wing. The former, attached to the party's "parliamentary
road," interpreted the chancellor's social policies as small tokens of his
willingness to compromise on major social issues. Led by most of the
social democratic Fraktion of the Reichstag, the moderates tended to play
down the class nature of the movement and emphasized piecemeal
reform. Though they were genuinely critical of Bismarck's autocratic
state, moderates like Bruno Geiser, Wilhelm Bios, Wilhelm Hasenclever,
and Franz Grillenberger were willing to work within the confines of the
anti-socialist laws, concentrating on expanding the party's appeal to
sectors of the population other than the industrial working class.9 In fact,
Bismarck's double-pronged strategy produced another unintended side
effect that, almost unnoticed, was to impact the overall political strategy of
the SPD. By leaving the weak Reichstag as the only "legal" avenue for
social democratic agitation, the chancellor forced the movement to link its
remaining political identity to parliamentarianism. An early article of
Bernstein's encapsulates this new significance of the Reichstag: "Our
deputies are sent to the Reichstag to raise the voice of the proletariat, the
voice of suffering, the persecuted, the oppressed . . . they are the
representatives of the disinherited and the outlawed."10
At the same time, members of the "radical" faction represented by
Bebel and the ideological firebrand Liebknecht continued to emphasize
the class-based nature of the SPD and denounced Bismarck's systematic
violations of basic liberties. Yet, though they identified themselves in
7
Bernstein, Sozialdemokratische Lehrjahre (Berlin: Dietz, 1991), p. 110.
8
EB, p. 21.
9
Gary P. Steenson, Karl Kautsky, 1854-1938: Marxism in the Classical Years (Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1978), p. 51.
10
Bernstein cited in Vernon Lidtke, The Outlawed Party. Social Democracy in Germany
1878-1890 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1966), p. 132.
 Persecution and exile 45
varying degrees as followers of Marx and Engels, radicals would have been
hard-put if asked to define what constituted "genuine Marxism."11 On
the other hand, even a very simplistic understanding of Marxist doctrine
was enough to realize that social reality in Germany seemed to bear out the
Marxist message: the chancellor's stubborn refusal to let the anti-socialist
laws lapse highlighted the conservative stance of the bourgeoisie; and, by
voting for the anti-socialist laws, Liberals had betrayed the working class,
thus giving political expression to the underlying antagonistic nature of
Wilhelmine class structures.

Exile in Switzerland
In 1878, the same fateful year that brought German social democracy
Engels' Anti-Duhring and Bismarck's anti-socialist laws, Eduard
Bernstein quit his secure bank job and accepted a position as private
secretary to Dr. Karl Hochberg, a wealthy young patron of the SPD.
Suffering from the tuberculosis which eventually caused his premature
death in 1885, Hochberg was advised to live in Switzerland. Making their
residence at first in Lugano and later in Zurich, the two men launched
several important publications, among them the socialist journals Die
Zukunfty and Jahrbuch fur Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, which
devoted much space to matters of theoretical inquiry. Soon after their
arrival in Switzerland, however, the Prussian authorities back in Germany
added Bernstein's name to a substantial list of violators of the anti-
socialist laws, thereby blocking his return to Berlin. Bernstein's long years
of exile had begun.
In spite of the bad news from back home, Bernstein enjoyed working for
his employer. Hochberg was a gifted intellectual who considered himself a
committed socialist and appreciated Marxist theory for its contribution to
the critique of bourgeois political economy; ultimately, however, he
preferred the left-liberal outlook evident in the ethical socialism of
Friedrich Albert Lange.12 It is not surprising that Marx and Engels saw in
their party patron Hochberg a naive "social philanthropist" with little
theoretical understanding of economics who embarrassed their young
11
Steenson, Karl Kautsky, p. 51.
12
Friedrich Albert Lange's (1828-1875) most important works are: Geschichte des Material-
ismus undKritik seiner Bedeutung in der Gegenwart (Iserlohn: Baedeker, 1866; translated by
Ernest Chester Thomas as History of Materialism [New York: Humanities Press, 1950]);
Die Arbeiterfrage in ihrer Bedeutung fur Gegenwart und Zukunft (Duisburg: Falk & Lange,
1865); and John Stuart Mills Ansichten u'ber die soziale Frage und die angebliche Umwa'lzung
der Sozialwissenschaft durch Carey (Duisburg: Falk & Lange, 1866). For the influence of
Lange's neo-Kantianism on Bernstein, see chapter 4; Knoll and Schops, Friedrich Albert
Lange: Leben and Werk\ Rikli, Der Revisionisms; DDS, pp. 152-155; see also my
"Historical Materialism and Ethics: Eduard Bernstein's Revisionist Perspective."
46 Preparation
party with his idealistic reveries.13 In fact, Engels' only reason for
personally receiving Hochberg in his London residence was his monetary
support. Although Bebel assured the "General" that the young patron
exerted no real influence in the party, Engels thought it would be best for
the SPD to detach itself from this "good but appallingly naive fellow."14
During their long debates, Bernstein sought to win Hochberg over to the
more Marxist perspective which he had himself only recently acquired
from his study of Engels' Anti-Duhring.
In spite of his newly found distaste for the seductive grip of "German
ideologies," it took Bernstein only a year to get himself embroiled in yet
another theoretical controversy - one that would cause the severe
consternation of Marx and Engels in London. The new dispute involved
the anonymous 1879 "Three-Star Article" in Hochberg's Jahrbuch fiir
Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik. Allegedly composed by Hochberg and
some of his close socialist friends, this ill-conceived essay criticized at
length the purported errors committed by German social democracy. In
particular, its authors accused the movement of an "exaggerated class
bias" which unneccessarily "fanned the hatred of the bourgeoisie",
thereby leading to the creation of the anti-socialist laws. In other words,
they identified Marxism's alleged penchant for "romanticizing the work-
ing class" as the underlying reason for the labor movement's unwilling-
ness to entertain possible alliances with the liberal bourgeoisie.15
Marx and Engels forcefully repudiated the article in an open letter to the
SPD, touching off wild speculations as to the identity of the author(s).
While the division of labor remains a mystery, it appears that the essay's
main authors were Karl Hochberg, C. A. Schramm, and Karl Flesch.
Bernstein's personal involvement in this unfortunate piece of rhetoric was
only minimal.16 At the time, however, Marx and Engels suspected
Bernstein of more active participation, and hence came to doubt his
loyalty to Marxist socialism. Already displeased with his role in the recent
"Duhring Affair," the London exiles hinted that Bernstein's career in the
SPD had become more than tenuous.
Around the same time, Georg von Vollmar decided to relinquish his
position as acting editor of Der Sozialdemokrat, the party's recently
established chief organ. Party leader Bebel, who felt that Bernstein's
occasional "lapses" ought to be attributed to his youthful inexperience
and not to his lack of loyalty to the cause, recommended that Bernstein
13
BebelBWE,p. 40.
14
DDS, p. 45.
15
"Ruckblicke auf die sozialistische Bewegung in Deutschland," in Jahrbuch fiir Sozialwis-
senschaft and Sozialpolitik I (1879), pp. 75-96.
16
Peter Gay (DDS, p. 44) speculates that the article was actually written by Karl Flesch,
who later became a well-known liberal reformer and city councillor of Frankfurt.
 Persecution and exile 47
succeed the Bavarian party leader as the paper's new permanent editor-in-
chief. In order to rehabilitate Bernstein's reputation with Marx and
Engels, Bebel was personally prepared to accompany the young penitent
on his December 1880 "Canossa Pilgrimage" to England. He was
convinced that his endorsement would persuade the elders that
Bernstein's Marxist roots were indeed strong enough to warrant such a
responsible position. As Bebel expected, the trip proved extremely
successful. Not only did Bernstein meet the two theoretical fathers of
German social democracy, but he also made hisfirstcontacts with various
leaders of the British labor movement. Marx received the young "sinner"
in a friendly manner at his home and engaged him in a long political
debate which was later continued in the famous Cafe Royal in Piccadilly
Circus. Bernstein's rapport with Engels was even better. Over several
glasses of fine Bordeaux, the "General"became convinced of the young
man's sincere dedication to Marxist socialism.17 In the ensuing years,
their mutual sympathies expanded into an intimate friendship that lasted
until Engels' death in 1895.18
Soon, the intimate network of Bernstein-Bebel-Engels was expanded
to include the Austrian socialist Karl Kautsky. Already a year before his
trip to London, Bernstein had made the acquaintance of this young
intellectual firebrand in Zurich. Working toward a PhD degree in the
history of philosophy and anthropology at the University of Vienna,
Kautsky had been raised on a steady diet of positivism and evolutionary
materialism, counting among his favorite thinkers Charles Darwin, Ernst
Haeckel, and Ludwig Buchner. Having joined the newly established
Austrian Social Democratic Workers' Party in 1875, the young Viennese
soon established himself as a regular contributor to the most prestigious
German and Austrian socialist journals, Vorwarts, Volkstaat, Die Gleich-
heity and Der Sozialist. Preoccupied with bringing natural science and
Darwinism to the service of socialism, Kautsky's early articles sought to
connect the evolutionary notion of the "struggle for survival" to "instinc-
tive solidarity rules," allegedly operating in all human societies.19 Per-
vaded by a good dose of Blichner's naturalism, while at the same time not
adverse to Thomas Henry Buckle's heroic idealism or George Sand's
17
Bernstein, My Years of Exile, p. 153.
18
For the correspondence between Bernstein and Engels, see Bernstein B WE. The literature
on the relationship between Bernstein and Engels is vast; the following is only a short
selection: Gustav Mayer, Friedrich Engels, 2 vols. (Hie Hague: Nijhoff, 1934); Angel,
EduardBernstein etUEvolution du Socialisme Allemand, pp. 99-176; Lichtheim, Marxism:
An Historical and Critical Study, pp. 203-300; Bo Gustafsson, Marxismus und Revisionis-
mus (Frankfurt/Main: Europaische Verlagsanstalt, 1972), pp. 35-88; Lehnert, Reform
und Revolution in der Strategiediskussionen der klassischen Sozialdemokratie, pp. 106-205;
MS, pp. 1-37.
19
Steenson, Karl Kautsky, pp. 31-32.
48 Preparation
romanticism, Kautsky's early social theory was a contradictory maze of
pseudo-materialism and ethical idealism - a peculiar mixture reflected in
his political engagement which oscillated between the romantic radical-
ism of the Austrian anarchists Josef and Andreas Scheu and the more
moderate "Austrian Lassalleanism" of Heinrich Oberwinder.
However, Kautsky's theoretical outlook fundamentally changed in the
winter of 1879-80 when he finally completed his study of Engels'
Anti-Duhring. His jubilant praise for the book's main theses corresponded
with the more sobering recognition that he had learned nothing but a
"frightful mass of nonsense at the university."20 In fact, Kautsky was
ready to give up his future academic plans, and he barely hesitated to
abandon his dissertation research. Having firmly resolved to pursue a
career as a socialist journalist, the young Viennese was pleased to accepted
Hochberg's offer to work as his second editorial assistant alongside
Bernstein. Although Kautsky remained in Zurich for only six months, the
two "young Turks" immediately embarked upon one of the most
remarkable friendships in socialist history.21
Between the years 1879 and 1932, "Ede" and the "Baron" (as Kautsky
was called after his weakness for exquisite clothes) exchanged more than a
thousand letters, making their correspondence one of the most volumi-
nous in the history of the European labor movement.22 Aside from being
emotionally rewarding, Bernstein's and Kautsky's common activities in
Zurich set the stage for their future stellar careers in the SPD. Kautsky
assisted his slightly older friend with difficult theoretical problems in the
fields of anthropology, biology, and sociology, while Bernstein's editorial
experience and his practical understanding of organizational party mat-
ters proved to be immensely beneficial to the abstract Viennese intellec-
tual. Moreover, Bernstein introduced his friend to the various circles of
socialist emigres - Russians, Italians, and Germans - who had found a
home in the politically liberal Zurich of the early 1880s. Over the next
months the two young socialists became inseparable - a "sort of red
Orestes and Pylades."23 Together, they established a Stammiisch ("regu-
20
Ibid., p . 1 5 .
21
See Kautsky, Erinnerungen und Erorterungen. Important intellectual biographies of Karl
Kautsky include: Walter Holzheuer, Karl Kautskys Werk als Weltanschauung. Beitrag zur
Ideologie der Sozialdemokratie vor dent Ersten Weltkrieg (Munich: Beck, 1972); Steenson,
Karl Kautsky, Massimo Salvadori, Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution, 1880-1938,
trans. Jon Rothschild (London: New Left Books, 1979); Reinhold Hunlich, Karl Kautsky
und der Marxismus der II Internationale (Marburg: Verlag Arbeiterbewegung und Gesel-
lschaftswissenschaft, 1981); Ingrid Gilcher-Holtey, Das Mandat des Intellektuellen: Karl
Kautsky und die Sozialdemokratie (Berlin: Siedler, 1986); Dick Geary, Karl Kautsky
(Manchester: Manchester UP, 1987); and John H. Kautsky, Karl Kautsky: Marxism,
Revolution & Democracy (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1994).
22
F o r a discussion of these letters, see S c h e l z - B r a n d e n b u r g , Eduard Bernstein und Karl
Kautsky.
23
Steenson, Karl Kautsky, p. 46.
 Persecution and exile 49
lar drinking table") in their favorite beer pubs, where, under the direction
of fellow-exile Julius Motteler, they composed and sang sarcastic verses
mocking the repressive political conditions in Germany. Together, the
"Marxist twins" drew up letters of inquiry to Engels in London, and
engaged in a host of other literary endeavors. One of their first common
intellectual projects was a collection of Marx's writings which led to the
1886/87 establishment of an "International Socialist Library," a series
that started with The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx.24
Indeed, Bernstein and Kautsky formulated their common Marxist
position from a joint study of primary sources, often commencing early in
the morning and, interrupted only by lunch and a brief walk, continuing
late into the night. 25 Their increasingly sophisticated Marxist analyses
speculated on the eventual outcome of the long period of economic
stagnation and high unemployment that followed the Great Depression of
1873 and lingered on in Germany throughout the 1880s. Together with
August Bebel, both men represented the party's radical "Marxist" wing,
accepting and defending Marx's predictions that economic crises of such
an extent as then prevailed would eventually lead to a general collapse of
capitalist society.26 Many of Bernstein's political articles written between
1882 and 1888 under the pseudonyms "Leo" or "Vitellius," reflect this
gloomy outlook and the concomitant hope for a swift revolutionary
seizure of power by the proletariat. 27
In addition to drawing a regular paycheck as a full-time party employee,
Bernstein's new position as editor-in-chief of Der Sozialdemokrat afforded
him the opportunity to establish himself as a leading theoretical voice
within German social democracy. Initially, however, Bernstein doubted
whether he was experienced enough to handle this challenging position.
Confiding his qualms to Engels, the young editor asked outright whether
it might not be better if he were replaced by a more "seasoned" comrade.
Engels' reassuring response came swiftly:
You have directed our paper with much skill, found the right tone, and developed
a fine sense of humor. For the editorship of a newspaper one does not need to
display one's scholasticism; what matters is one's ability to grasp the political
situation in an instant. This you have proven almost every single time. Kautsky, on
the other hand, has failed in this regard, because he always loses himself in endless
elaborations of minor points. 28
In a letter to Bebel, Engels was even more explicit in his criticism of
Kautsky, expressing severe reservations about what he perceived to be
24
Karl Kautsky, Karl Marx' okonomische Lehren (Stuttgart: Dietz, 1887).
25
Karl Kautsky, "Eduard Bernstein," p. 44.
26
C /, p. 20.
27
Three of these articles have been translated by Tudor and Tudor in MS, pp. 38-50.
28
Engels to Bernstein (April 14, 1881) in Bernstein BWE, p. 25.
50 Preparation
Kautsky's lingering dogmatism: "I believe that Bernstein fits the job much
better than Kautsky . . . Recently, Kautsky spent some time here [in
London] and I had a serious clash with him. This leads me to believe that
in the future, significant differences of opinion between him and us
[Engels and Bebel] could easily arise." 29 Following Marx, who regarded
Kautsky as a "talented drinker," "superwise," and a "mediocre character
with a small-minded outlook," 30 the "General" believed the underlying
reasons for his own problems with the young hothead lay in Kautsky's
"innate pedantry and obvious tendency to split hairs... For a newspaper,
such a dogmatist is truly a disaster." 31 On the other hand, Bernstein's
rather detached objectivism, his ability to mediate between different sides,
and his keen political eye made him an excellent choice.
Seeking to teach the "Baron" a lesson, Engels published his own
articles in Bernstein's Der Sozialdemokrat, politely but firmly turning
down Kautsky's repeated requests to work with him on his more
theoretical Neue Zeit> a journal which Kautsky had proudly founded in
1883 with the help of the German socialist publisher J. H. W. Dietz. Given
that the journal's expressed purpose was to continue the theoretical
tradition of Marx's Neue Rheinische Zeitung?2 the fledgling Marxist
intellectual must have been especially pained by Engels' reservations. In
fact, it was rather ironic that Kautsky, the editor-in-chief of the SPD's sole
"legal" publication, remained on the editorial fringes of the party, while
Bernstein, editing the party's "illegal" organ in Switzerland, found
himself at the ideological center of the movement. But Kautsky soon
realized that a smooth working relationship with Engels was an indispens-
able precondition for his future theoretical career. Dutifully, he swallowed
his youthful pride and embarked on a series of "study trips" to England,
receiving "private lessons" in Marxist theory from the "General" himself.
By 1887, the aging tutor could take great pride in the intellectual
"progress"of his earnest pupil, confiding to a friend that he had begun to
trust in Kautsky's theoretical abilities "like my own." 33
Bernstein, on the other hand, soon found himself in the midst of a nasty
dispute over his "orthodox Marxist" editorial style. Moderates in the
Reichstag Fraktion were beginning to criticize what they considered the
increasingly "radical" and "one-sided" tone of Der Sozialdemokrat. Led
by Wilhelm Bios, Wilhelm Hasenclever, and Ernst Breuel, a number of
29
Engels to Bebel (February 11, 1881) in Bebel BWE, p. 102.
30
Marx cited in Steenson, Karl Kautsky> p. 47.
31
Engels to Bebel (August 25, 1881) in Bebel BWE, p. 114.
32
Engels to Kautsky (November 15,1882) in MEW 35, p. 399. Even two years later, Engels
still refused to acknowledge Kautsky's Neue Zeit as one of several "official" SPD party
organs.
33
Engels to F. A. Sorge (April 6, 1887) in MEW36, p. 635.
 Persecution and exile 51
German representatives publicly disavowed any responsibility for the
content of the journal's articles. Bernstein retaliated with a sharp attack on
Breuel, and soon accusation followed accusation.34 Supported by
Kautsky and Bebel, Bernstein doggedly fought against the moderates'
efforts to muzzle the Marxist rhetoric of his paper, bravely resisting their
attempts to bring Der Sozialdemokrat more directly under their control.
While the conflicting attitude of German socialists toward Bismarck's
social legislation often lay at the core of the dispute, the ongoing
controversy between moderates and radicals assumed a particularly
heated character when Bernstein permitted the publication of two articles
which identified all social democrats as "true communists, revolutiona-
ries, and enemies of the state" and openly endorsed the "use of violence
against state-supported violence."35 Fearing a new round of repressive
measures against German socialist leaders, even Bebel was outraged.
Engels, who secretly enjoyed the paper's militancy, nonetheless warned
his pupil in Switzerland against permitting "an exaggerated rhetoric of
violence." Bernstein's response once again illustrated his remarkable
ability to consider the advice of his more experienced comrades: in
typically straightforward fashion, he assumed full responsibility for the
unfortunate episode, apologized, and emphasized his "willingness to
correct his mistakes."36 Despite the long and stressful period of severe
criticism to which he and his paper were subjected by it, Bernstein
appreciated the iron discipline of the labor movement, particularly its
repeated refusal to give in to the temptation to break up into different
political organizations: "To the honor of Hasenclever, I must sincerely
attest that he has throughout stood up for the *S[oziaI\-D[emokratY -
despite all our differences. The same goes for Grillenberger. Discipline is
truly the strength of our party."37 Little did Bernstein know that the apex
of his battle with the SPD moderates was still ahead.
Late in 1884, the Imperial Government proposed a steamship subsidy
bill that would grant German steamship lines a subsidy of 5.4 million
marks for the creation and extension of existing routes to Africa, Australia,
East Asia, and the South Sea Islands. A latecomer to the nineteenth-
century European scramble for colonies, Germany obviously sought to
catch up with France and England, and thus used public funds to support
a big industry which was growing monopolistic in structure.38 Disagree-
ments in the SPD over support for protective tariffs were not new.
34
For a detailed account of this dispute, see EB, pp. 25-34.
35
Georg von Vollmar, Reden und Schriften zur Sozialpolitik, edited by Willy Albrecht
(Berlin-Bonn: Dietz, 1977), p. 84.
36
Bernstein cited in EB, p. 28.
37
Bernstein to Engels Qune 20, 1884), Bernstein BWE, p. 277.
38
DDS, p. 55.
52 Preparation
Moderates tended to argue that governmental subsidies for domestic
industrial production were in the interest of the working class, since such
subsidies led, in almost every case, to the creation of new industrial jobs.
On the other side, radicals frequently refused to give blanket endorsement
to such "job creation measures" without the inclusion of social demands
like a reduction in work hours, higher safety standards, and standardized
minimum wage laws. As Gary Steenson has pointed out, back in 1879
Engels had worked out a set of "guidelines for positive parliamentary
behavior" which counselled the SPD Reichstag representatives to grant
Bismarck nothing "which will increase the power of the government
vis-a-vis the people." 39
Obviously, a case could easily be made for the rejection of the proposed
steamship subsidy bill, since it implicitly linked public funds to repressive
colonial policies that not only failed to advance the power of the German
people by one iota, but, through the method of indirect taxation, made
"the workers carry the lion's share of the subsidies."40 Yet SPD moder-
ates used the nebulous argument of Germany's alleged "duty" to "further
world communication" to suggest the endorsement of the subsidy bill,
with the exception of the portion that was earmarked for African ships.
The radical minority faction led by Bebel and Liebknecht was vigorously
opposed to all subsidies, contending that steamship subsidies could not be
separated from imperialism and the undermining of world peace. While
Bernstein openly sided with Bebel's views, he made sure that the ensuing
issues of Der Sozialdemokrat included articles and letters to the editor from
both proponents and opponents of the bill.41
Still, most members of the moderate Fraktion felt that he had given more
space to the radical perspective, and they issued an official declaration
criticizing Bernstein's editorial policy: "The paper does not determine the
attitude of the parliamentary party, it is the parliamentary party which
must control the attitude of the paper." 42 When Bernstein received this
statement with the "order" to publish it without comment in the next
issue, he bristled at the moderates' complete disregard for his genuine
attempts to permit a balanced discussion of the matter. In response, he
refused to insert the statement in the paper and, citing the incident as a
threat to his editorial independence, offered to resign on the spot.43 Once
again, his professional future in the labor movement hung in the balance.
Fortunately for Bernstein, the "General" stepped in and facilitated a

39
Steenson, After Marx, Before Lenin, p. 93.
40
Bebel to Engels (December 28, 1884), Bebel BWE, p. 206.
41
EB, p. 36.
42
DDS, p. 55.
43
Ibid., pp. 55-56.
 Persecution and exile 53
compromise that ended the crisis and saved his pupil's job. Following
Engels' advice, the Fraktion moderates agreed to offer amendments to the
bill that would cut the subsidies to 3.7 million marks and explicitly link the
release of the funds to their demands that all ships would have to be built
in German shipyards. When the Reichstag Conservatives predictably
rejected all socialist amendments, even the moderates were frustrated
enough to vote unanimously against the bill. Although the act easily
passed the final vote in parliament, the unified action of the SPD
parliamentarians "officially" restored the peace within the party. Though
Bernstein continued in his editorial position and could thus claim an
important personal victory, some irritation between the two wings of
German social democracy remained - a mutual sense of alienation that
harkened back to the original opposition between the "Marxist"
Eisenachers and the "Lassallean" state socialists.44
Bernstein unflinchingly continued to edit Der Sozialdemokrat along
Marxist lines, often drawing the ire of the pro-German "Lassalleans" for
his support of a "proletarian internationalism" over the chauvinistic
conception of a "nationalist" socialism. Identifying capitalism as the
major source for nationalism and war, Bernstein's paper consciously
aimed at disseminating Marxist arguments among its socialist readership:
"As long as the class state exists, there is no way to eliminate wars of nation
against nation. Wherever we find economic exploitation, wefindwar - at
home between the exploiters and the exploited and abroad among the
exploiters' struggle over territories for exploitation."45 Lassalleans de-
murred; the colonial expansion of the German Empire not only appealed
to their nationalistic pride, but, as they saw it, it also contributed to the
steady rise of the German worker's living standard.
As Henry Tudor has noted, it was perhaps the most complicated part of
Bernstein's task as editor-in-chief to help win the arguments against the
remaining Lassalleanism without jeopardizing party unity.46 In this
difficult enterprise, Bernstein's hand was significantly strengthened by
Engels' advice and support. While the "General's" specific advice to the
leaders of European labor movements sometimes fell on deaf ears, his
unique position as the "legitimate voice of Marxist socialism" frequently
gave him the necessary bully pulpit from which to preach the pursuit of a
"Marxist politics." In fact, as the Conservative-dominated Reichstag kept
renewing Bismarck's Anti-Socialist Laws, Engels came up with the
ingenious "Marxist" suggestion that the party adopt a tactic of "intransi-
gent opposition." Marrying revolutionary Marxist rhetoric with the
44
EB, pp. 36-37.
45
Der Sozialdemokrat (December 23, 1888).
46
Tudor, "Introduction," in MS, p. 5.
54 Preparation
"realistic" tactic of maintaining the "parliamentary road," Engels pro-
nounced that the party had the duty of actively participating in the
parliamentary process in order to increase its strength and secure its
survival. However, parliamentary activity should not be seen as an end in
itself, but as an instrumental means within a long-term struggle that would
"inevitably" culminate in revolution. 47 Confirmed in their cherished roles
within parliamentarian "legality," moderates were willing to pay lip
service to the "revolutionary final goal," and could even occasionally be
counted on to support radical slogans directed against the "repressive
enemies of the working class."
But nobody grasped the propagandistic opportunities hidden in Engels'
"solution" better than August Bebel. Again and again, he encouraged
Bernstein and his other literary comrades to show in their articles how
existing repressive political conditions had in fact borne out the radical
message of Marx and Engels. Raising Marxist principles to the status of
"prophetic" pronouncements, Bebel promised workers that the time of
their trials and tribulations was merely a necessary "overture" to a heroic
future. Ultimately, the socialist opera would end triumphantly with the
avenging angel of history brandishing his sword, clearing the stage for the
final socialist goal - the revolutionary seizure of political power by the
proletariat and the establishment of a just economic and social order. In
particular, Bebel's renewed sanguine predictions of an impending col-
lapse of capitalist society - "at the latest in 1889" - gave his popular
underground speeches the force of unshakable commandments. 48
Backed by their two powerful mentors, Bernstein and Kautsky gradual-
ly emerged as the leading theoretical voices of the SPD, their respective
editorial activities proving instrumental in imparting orthodox Marxist
theory to the young German labor movement. Yet, each man saw his role
as Marxist theorist in a different light. As Gary Steenson emphasizes,
Kautsky's early role in the Austrian party was a model for all his later
participation in various socialist organizations: he took no part in
administration, and neither held nor ran for public or party offices, seeing
himself exclusively as a propagandist, teacher, and very occasional
speaker. 49 Thus, he viewed the socialist intellectual, first and foremost, as
a Marxist popularizer and fierce guardian of "correct" Marxist theory.
Striving to fulfill Engels' ambitions to elevate Marxist doctrine as the only
"genuine" Weltanschauung of the proletariat, Kautsky denned the para-
mount task of the Marxist theorist as that of keeping watch over the
separation of "true" social theories from "false" ones.
47
Ibid., pp. 3-4.
48
See Bernstein, My Years of Exile, p. 96.
49
Steenson, Karl Kautsky, p. 38.
 Persecution and exile 55
Consequently, Kautsky and his Neue Zeit concentrated on highlighting
the disparities between the "scientific character of Marxism" and the
ideological distortions of "bourgeois" social theory or other "non-
scientific," i.e., "non-Marxist" forms of socialism. Hoping to rid the party
entirely of its remaining philosophical "eclecticism," he preached the
superiority of Marx's method as a tool for analyzing society by focusing
primarily on the development of the mode of production. Over and over
again, Kautsky insisted on the importance of a "proletarian vantage point"
which, by its very nature, could not tolerate "spurious compromises and
syntheses" in the realm of theory: "The bridging and balancing of
opposites - a significant task of practical politics - is the death of theory. " 50
At the same time, Kautsky legitimized the party's gap between
revolutionary theory and reformist practice - inherent in Engels' tactics of
"intransigent opposition" - by readily accepting the existence of crucial
functional differences between socialist theorists and the Praktiker ("prag-
matists") of the labor movement. It is clear that Kautsky's objective was to
secure the intellectual autonomy of the former while leaving the latter
sufficient latitude for shifting political tactics. Ultimately, the power of
this conception was reflected in the realities of party life: the formation of
an enduring "Kautsky-Bebel axis" around which most items of the SPD's
political and theoretical agenda would turn for almost two decades.
On the other hand, Bernstein's conception of theoretical leadership
differed in many important respects from Kautsky's "evangelical" exer-
cises aimed at "spreading the Marxist word to the masses." Directing a
primarily policy-oriented party organ, Bernstein was more interested in
the difficult task of testing the applicability of socialist ideas in the complex
realm of political and economic practice. Unlike Kautsky, who felt that
the socialist intellectual's talents were wasted on the "detail work of the
day,"51 Bernstein enjoyed analyzing intricate policy questions from a
Marxist point of view, and never sought to free the theorist from practical
matters. He grew increasingly engaged in a struggle with what he saw as a
widening of the theory-practice deficit in the SPD, hoping to provide both
a "realistic" and a value-oriented framework for successful socialist
action. Despite his genuine affection for Engels and the theoretical
outlook he stood for, Bernstein's understanding of the role of the socialist
intellectual more closely approached the commonsensical convictions
expressed in Liebknecht's famous dictum: "I cherish Marx; still, party
matters are paramount."52
50
Karl Kautsky, "Der Parteitag in Liibeck," in NZ 20.1 (1901-2), pp. 19-20.
51
Karl Kautsky, "Akademiker und Proletarier," in NZ 19.2 (1900-1), pp. 90-91.
52
Protokoll tiber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutsch-
lands, abgehalten zu Erfurt vom 14-20 Oktober 1891 (Berlin, 1891), p. 327.
56 Preparation
But Bernstein's apprenticeship years in his Swiss exile were not
exclusively dedicated to matters of socialist politics. In 1887, in a quiet
ceremony, he married Regine Zadek-Schattner, a widow with two young
children. Superficial acquaintances of the Bernsteins, "Gine" Zadek's
Berlin family was also Jewish and Polish in origin. Young Ede had been an
occasional guest at the Zadek home in the early 1870s, when the quiet and
well-educated Gine married Carl Schattner, a Serbian industrialist whose
business failed a few years after the wedding. Given to alcohol abuse and
occasional violent outbursts, Carl Schattner showed little interest in his
two children and frequently mistreated his young wife. His sudden death
almost came as a relief for Gine. Accompanied by her mother, son Ernst
and daughter Kate, she moved to Switzerland, where she again met
Eduard Bernstein. But unable to make ends meet, Gine and her children
were forced to return to Berlin and move in with her brother, Ignaz Zadek,
a successful medical doctor with strong sympathies for the labor move-
ment. Aware that his friend had fallen in love with the young widow,
Kautsky suggested that Bernstein invite her back to Zurich for an
extended stay - a recommendation that ultimately led to Ede and Gine's
marriage. 53
The couple's relationship was extremely close, and although they
remained childless, Bernstein proved himself a kind stepfather, treating
his wife's children as his own. Throughout the years, Ede remained
extremely private about his family life, and even his very revealing
autobiographical books deal only very sparingly with his marital relation-
ship. In fact, his announcement of his impending wedding barely
comprises two paragraphs. After reassuring Engels that Gine was a "good
comrade willing to shoulder all obligations which my position imposes on
me," Bernstein ended his brief note with a rather detached remark: "Well,
that's off my chest, and now back to more general matters . . ," 54
Herself drawn to socialism, Gine was more than willing to share her
husband's professional burden. She single-handedly translated Sidney
and Beatrice Webb's voluminous History of British Trade Unions into
German, with Ede supplying the introduction. 55 There is, however, no
evidence to support the suggestion that Gine influenced her husband to
break with orthodox Marxism. 56 Quite the contrary. She struck up a deep
53
Florian Tennstedt, "Arbeiterbewegung und Familiengeschichte bei Eduard Bernstein
und Ignaz Zadek," in Internationale wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz zur Geschichte der
deutschen Arbeiterbewegung 18.4 (1982), p. 474; and Eduard Bernstein, Sozialdemok-
ratische Lehrjahre, pp. 157-160.
54
Bernstein cited in DDS, p. 56.
55
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Die Geschichte des Britischen Trade Unionismus, translated by
Regine Bernstein and introduced by Eduard Bernstein (Stuttgart: Dietz, 1895).
56
See Angel, Eduard Bernstein et L'Evolution du Socialisme Allemand^ p. 71.
 Persecution and exile 57
friendship with the aging Engels, engaged him on political topics, and
helped him carry out his personal errands, especially as his health began to
fail. When Gine died in 1923, Bernstein fell into despair. Unable to
overcome his loss, he retreated to his home and remained there for several
months. Unwilling to receive visitors for a long time, he buried himself in
work and became something of a social recluse.
Bernstein's political exile in Zurich also afforded him the opportunity of
expanding his education beyond the immediate demands of his editorial
position. He embarked on an intensive study of languages and European
history, and within three years was able to speak and write fluently in
Italian and French. By 1883, his French was so good, in fact, that Engels
entrusted him with the German translation of Misere de la Philosophie -
Marx's famous critique of Proudhon's decentralized, communal social-
ism. Upon moving to London, Bernstein immersed himself in the study of
English, a language with which he grew so comfortable that he continued
to correspond in it throughout his life. As Bernstein's intellectual horizons
expanded and his journalistic experience grew, so did the circulation of
Der Sozialdemokrat, already surpassing 10,000 in 1884. Evincing his
enthusiasm for his protege's editorial performance, Engels wrote to
Bernstein approvingly: "I believe that a young man like you who has
proven himself so brilliantly should continue at the job indefinitely."57

Literary endeavors in England

With the socialist share of the 1887 Reichstag elections approaching
800,000 votes - 10 percent of the total and more than ever before -
Chancellor Bismarck intensified his ongoing diplomatic interventions
with Swiss authorities in favor of more stringent measures against the
German socialist exiles. A year later, his efforts finally bore fruit.
Bernstein, Motteler, and two other editorial staff members were charged
with engaging in subversive political activities and were ordered to leave
Switzerland within a few weeks. As they boarded their train at the Zurich
station, the exiles were pleasantly surprised to see hundreds of well-
wishers carrying proletarian banners, waving, and shouting "long live
social democracy" and "see you again!"58
At Engels' suggestion, Bernstein and his comrades moved to London,
taking Der Sozialdemokrat with them. But with the unexpected lapse of the
anti-socialist laws two years later, the "official" mission of the journal -
protesting Bismarck's repressive measures - had come to an end. Almost
overnight, Bernstein lost his influential job and was forced to supplement
57
Engels to Bernstein (August 17, 1881) in Bernstein BWE, p. 31.
58
EB, p. 43.
58 Preparation
his reduced income by increasing his journalistic freelance activities. Once
more the party proved kind to him, offering the position of London
correspondent for both Kautsky's Neue Zeit and Liebknecht's Berlin-
based party organ Vorwdrts. To Bernstein's delight, his new activities did
not nearly match up to his previous time-consuming editorial duties,
allowing him to turn his attention to socialist theory and history.
Following Engels' advice, he emulated Marx's daily routine, spending
long days in the reading room of the British Museum collecting material
for his first major historical work, Cromwell and Communism.59 Utilizing
historical materialism - Marx's method of analyzing social phenomena
from the perspective of the forces and relations of production - Bern-
stein's book supplied the neglected economic dimension to the study of
seventeeth-century British radicalism. Well researched and written in a
smooth journalistic style, Cromwell and Communism achieved universal
acclaim from his contemporary critics and developed over the decades
into a "minor classic" of British social history.
The study was an impressive testimony to the beneficial effects of
Bernstein's presence in London; not only did he gain access to a much
greater body of scholarship than he could find in Zurich, but he also
developed an even tighter working relationship with Engels. Engaging in
long discussions that sometimes lasted into the early morning hours,
Bernstein became the "General's" most trusted political confidant and
personal friend. As a token of his growing appreciation, Engels even
offered him the sole editorship of Marx's unfinished material, which was
to be incorporated into volume iv of Capital. This clear sign of preferential
treatment sorely upset Kautsky, who considered the theoretical expertise
he had acquired as editor-in-chief of the party's most "academic" journal
to be superior to that of his old friend Ede - a judgment Engels obviously
did not share.60
Good-natured as ever, and unwilling to risk his close friendship with
Kautsky, Bernstein declined Engels' offer, turned the material over to
Kautsky, and instead embarked on yet another major historical project:
the study of Lassalle's life and social thought. After organizing Lassalle's
writings into a new, more comprehensive edition, Bernstein published a
detailed political biography of the legendary German working-class
hero.61 The overall tone of the book was critical. While he lauded
Lassalle's efforts to organize the proletariat as a political party and endow

59
Eduard Bernstein, Cromwell and Communism (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1930).
60
Bernstein to Kautsky (September 30, 1890), Kautsky Archives, International Institute for
Social History, Amsterdam (IISH), DV131.
61
Eduard Bernstein, Ferdinand Lassalle As a Social Reformer, translated by Eleanor Marx
Aveling (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1893).
 Persecution and exile 59
it with its initial sense of its "great socialist ideals," Bernstein went on to
lambast most of Lassalle's political and economic schemes, particularly
his incipient nationalism and his reliance on strong state support for the
creation of workers' producer cooperatives.
Indeed, he most resented Lassalle's "narcissistic grandiosity" and the
"compulsive social climbing" which led the self-proclaimed "leader of the
proletariat" to "flirt with the forces of reaction which he wanted to use to
his advantage . . . instead of trusting the innate strength of the labor
movement."62 It should not come as a surprise that such passages aroused
vehement protests from the remaining German Lassalleans. For them,
Bernstein was engaged in an "unfair strategy" of connecting distinctive
traits of Lassalle's allegedly "flawed" personality to his "failed" political
initiatives. Engels, however, applauded Bernstein's efforts and did his best
to shield his sensitive pupil from the contents of the numerous protest
letters he received from German Lassalleans. Unfazed by the bombard-
ment, the "General" told Bernstein to disregard his "misguided critics."
At the same time, he encouraged him to use the powerful "iron fist" of the
critic encased in a "velvet glove," in continuing to smash the popular
"Lassalle Legend."63

The "New Course" in Germany

In 1890, only two years after Bernstein's arrival in London, the political
situation in Germany changed dramatically. The new Kaiser Wilhelm II
dismissed Chancellor Bismarck over their conflicting views on the
government's strategy vis-a-vis the recalcitrant social democrats. Having
decided to follow the advice of his Junker counsellors under the leadership
of the new Chancellor Leo von Caprivi, who favored a quick end to the
politically effective "martyrdom" of the SPD, Wilhelm II let the anti-
socialist laws lapse and inaugurated another era of social legislation in
Germany. For example, the comprehensive 1891 Workers' Protection
Act reflected the more temperate "New Course of the Kaiser."
Moderate social democrats immediately applauded his actions and
demanded that the SPD leadership tone down its revolutionary message.
Leading pragmatists like the Bavarian party leader Georg von Vollmar,
Bruno Schonlank, Max Quark, and Eduard David implicitly questioned
the class character of the party by suggesting to Bebel that their new status
of "legality," combined with "patience" and constant reformist pressure
on the government, would eventually result in effective reforms benefiting

62
Ibid., p . 1 2 5 .
63
Engels cited in EB, p. 50.
60 Preparation
all of German society.64 Indeed, many Praktiker in the SPD openly
revealed that they considered themselves "Marxists" only to the extent
that they accepted the steady flow of communication between the party
leadership and Engels in London. With the lapse of the Anti-Socialist
Laws, they emphasized a reformist model of social transformation, and
even proposed maintaining some form of "constructive interaction" with
the government and bourgeois parties on particular issues.65
Predictably, their vision of "reform socialism" encouraged a number of
radical voices openly to question the wisdom of the "phoney" coexistence
of revolutionary Marxist ideology and reformist political practice. Known
as the "Youngsters," these self-proclaimed "revolutionary Marxists"
exercised considerable influence over a number of socialist newspapers,
and fiercely attacked Bebel and the SPD leadership for not opposing the
Praktiker more firmly. Calling the party's parliamentarianism "despicable
petty-bourgeois opportunism,"66 the Youngsters faction resembled to
some extent the British "Social Democratic Federation" (SDF) whose
"Marxist" leaders combined their insurrectionary reading of The Commu-
nist Manifesto with incessant calls for "radical measures."
As moderates began to strike back at the Youngsters, Bebel recognized
the impending danger to party unity and turned to Engels for advice. After
a short exchange of letters, both men reaffirmed their conviction that the
post-1890 political situation in Germany demanded a change in agita-
tional tactics without an abandonment of radical tenets. Engels continued
to argue that the principles of representative democracy were only an
intermediate step on the way toward the Marxist revolutionary "final
goal." However, the Kaiser's "New Course" cried out for a fundamental
re-evaluation of party tactics built on the old political realities of state
oppression, marginalization, rigid opposition, and underground resis-
tance. While both Engels and Bebel scorned the moderates' call for
absolute reformism, they agreed on a temporary strategy endorsing
"gradualist" tactics. In their opinion, the rapid growth of the labor
movement could only be maintained under conditions of legality and
without launching radical provocations against the Kaiser's government.
Nothing would be more devastating for German social democracy than a
new round of oppressive measures before the SPD was strong enough to
muster a decisive revolutionary response.
64
For a recent evaluation of the role of Bavarian socialist reformists and their leader, Georg
von Vollmar, see Francis L. Carsten, "Georg von Vollmar: A Bavarian Social Democrat,"
in Journal of Contemporary History 25 (1990), pp. 317-335.
65
Gilcher-Holtey, Das Mandat des Intellektuellen: KarlKautsky und die Sozialdemokratie, pp.
54- 55.
66
For a detailed summary of the Youngsters' activities, see Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and
the Working-Class Mentality in Germany 1887-1912, pp. 19-34.
 Persecution and exile 61
Reacting as a mere "tactician/' Engels repeatedly warned party radicals
against premature forms of direct action. For example, pointing to the
volatile political climate in Germany, he counselled against SPD-led
demonstrations in celebration of "Labor Day." In addition, he dismissed
the Youngsters' calls for a general strike on that day as "horrendous
stupidity."67 Indeed, throughout the 1890s, Engels upheld, "for the time
being," "peacefulness, legality, and restraint."68 It is ironic that Engels,
who had formulated the classical Marxist definition of "opportunism"
and mercilessly exposed every kind of opportunism in the international
labor movement, was prepared to "give the SPD enormous latitude in this
regard - as long as it contributed to its smooth growth."69
Having found common ground on party tactics, Engels and Bebel
pronounced their final "verdict" on the Youngsters' rebellion. To the
radicals' great dismay, the co-author of The Communist Manifesto scorn-
fully dismissed their proposals as "frantically distorting Marxism," and
blamed it on the "present rush of students and literary types into the
party."70 While firing his verbal salvos against these "arrogant upstarts,"
Engels did not hesitate to turn his fury against the moderates as well,
calling them "petty bourgeois socialists" who would soon "bite the
dust."71 Leaning on Bebel's ability to execute his proposals, Engels
suggested drastic measures to keep the party from losing its ideological
unity, and thus its political effectiveness: the anarchist leaders of the
"Youngsters" were expelled, and leading Praktiker were pressured into
renewing their token recognition of revolutionary Marxist principles.
In this spirit of "house-cleaning," an enthusiastic Engels announced to
Laura Marx-Lafargue that "February 20, 1890" was the "day of the
beginning of the German revolution."72 Polling almost 1.5 million votes
out of 9.5 million in this triumphant election of 1890, German social
democracy had finally made the transition from a small movement to a
well-organized mass party - the second strongest in the Reich. Engels even
went so far as to calculate with "mathematical certainty" the coming
electoral victory of the SPD. In his opinion, a majority of the military's
personnel would vote social democratic by 1900, thus opening up the
possibility of a quick and relatively bloodless takeover by the proletariat.73
67
Engels to Adolph Sorge (April 19, 1890), MEW37, p. 395.
68
MEW 37, pp. 366, 381.
69
Hans-J. Steinberg, "Friedrich Engels' revolutionare Strategie nach dem Fall des
Sozialistengesetzes," in H. Pelger, ed. Friedrich Engels 1820-1970 (Hannover: Verlag fur
Literatur und Zeitgeschehen, 1971), p. 126.
70
Engels to Otto von Bonigk (August 21, 1890), MEW 37, p. 444.
71
Engels to Kautsky (September 4, 1893), MEW 38, p. 448.
72
Engels to Laura Lafargue (February 26, 1890) in MEW 37, p. 359.
73
Engels in MEW 22, p. 251.
62 Preparation
While Bebel agreed with Engels' tactical moderation and shared his
confidence in the ultimate victory of the proletariat, their overall concep-
tual blueprint of the coming socialist revolution differed significantly.
Bebel expected the working class to take power after a general economic
breakdown, thus in effect endorsing what Dieter Groh refers to as
"revolutionary attentisme" - a combination of fatalism and formal radical-
ism.74 In other words, the collapse of capitalism and revolution was an
inevitable "natural process." In the meantime, the task of the party
consisted in organizing the proletariat and preparing it for the decisive
moment. Liebknecht shared neither Engels' nor Bebel's ideas: he identifi-
ed as the goal of the SPD's gradualism the assumption of an absolute
majority in parliament, and the subsequent hineinwachsen ("growing
into") of the current society into socialism. It was this vaguely expressed
conception of an "evolutionary socialism" which Bernstein would ulti-
mately supply with a more sophisticated theoretical foundation. Yet, these
incompatible assumptions regarding the party's "gradualism" go to show
that while Engels, Bebel, Liebknecht, and even the moderates agreed on
peaceful party tactics, each clearly subscribed to different conceptual
models of what a "socialist transformation of society" in the German
context really meant.
But in the early 1890s, these diverging theoretical visions signified very
little. The party continued engaging in the "reformist" practice of
pursuing immediate improvements of workers' conditions, which some-
times involved informal "deals" and compromises with bourgeois parties
and the Kaiser's authoritarian government. In fact, party secretary Ignaz
Auer later claimed that even from the time of its inception, the German
social democracy stood for a thorough reformism, for "How could it be
otherwise for a party that counts on mass support?"75 Though ingenious
in its theoretical design, Engels' strategy of endorsing "short-term"
reformist tactics that were not at odds with a revolutionary "final goal"
merely postponed the emergence of voices critical of this widening chasm
between theory and practice. Future "revisionists" like Bernstein would
eventually ask the crucial question: if Marxist theory depended on
practice and vice versa, and if the military did not overwhelmingly support
social democracy by the turn of the century, didn't Engels' endorsement
of legality and electoral concerns ultimately have to translate into a
"revision" of theory as well?
Already a year later, the rupture between theory and practice became
painfully obvious when the SPD leadership decided to draft the new 1891
74
Dieter Groh, Negative Integration und revolutiondrer Attentismus: Die deutsche Sozialdemok-
ratie am Vorabend des Ersten Weltkrieges (Frankfurt: Propylaen, 1973).
75
Auer cited in Bernstein, Ignaz Auer, p. 63.
 Persecution and exile 63
Erfurt Party Program. In addition, the events leading up to the adoption of
the new program significantly changed the existing power relations within
the SPD. Determined to purge social democracy of its last Lassallean
remnants, Engels, against the wishes expressed in Marx's last will and
testament, resolved to publish the latter's private notes criticizing the
party's 1875 Gotha Program. Engels' surprising initiative, undertaken
without informing the party leadership, had two important objectives.
First, in line with Bernstein's literary efforts, he sought to shatter the
persistent "Lassalle Legend." Engels hoped that the publication of
Marx's private opinions would help to reveal a historical truth: the
existence of "deep antagonisms between Marx and Lassalle."76
But Engels' calculated manoeuvre had a second target: Wilhelm
Liebknecht. Realizing that his aging comrade's intellectual ability to
spread Marx's gospel to a new generation of workers had reached its
limits, the "General" wanted to see him replaced by two more sophisti-
cated Marxist theorists, namely Kautsky and Bernstein. Engels knew only
too well that Marx's marginal notes would reveal not only the latter's
disapproval of Lassallean ideas but also his low esteem for Liebknecht, the
theoretical "architect" of the "eclectic" 1875 Gotha Program. Hence, he
was ready to weather the unpleasant storm of party criticism hurled at him
for his indiscretion.
Engels' plan worked to perfection. Once the initial wave of outrage had
passed, Engels' scheme succeeded in producing the desired effects. While
the SPD leadership offically commissioned Liebknecht with drawing up
the new program, Bebel's confidence in his old comrade-in-arms waned
quickly in the light of Engels' revelations.77 When Liebknecht's internal
draft was made accessible for review to leaders of both the social
democratic parliamentary faction and local party chapters, Bebel eagerly
joined the growing chorus of its critics, allowing Kautsky to launch an
all-out assault on Liebknecht's version. In fact, Kautsky's alternative
proposal, based on the 1880 French "Minimalist Program" drafted by
Marx and two leading French socialists, soon emerged as the leading draft
proposal.
Readily agreeing to minor changes suggested by Bebel, Kautsky
managed to gather the entire political weight of the powerful party leader
behind his proposal. The "hands-on politician" (Bebel) and the "Marxist
ideologist" (Kautsky) had coordinated their mutually beneficial career
76
Engels BWK, pp. 282, 283.
77
The belated publication also revealed that Liebknecht had managed to hide from Bebel
Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program, which he had sent to the party leadership. Had Bebel
read Marx's remarks, he probably would not have given his approval to Liebknecht's
draft.
64 Preparation
interests, a phenomenon that was to leave its indelible mark on the history
of German social democracy. With Kautsky on board, Bebel was even
strong enough to send the "General" a clear sign of his independent
political leadership. Warning against the dangerous political conse-
quences of incorporating Engels' radical-democratic demands for "the
concentration of all political power in the hands of a people's representa-
tive body," 78 Bebel instead suggested a reformulation of this passage that
would blunt its radical edge. Against Engels' protest, the party leadership
overwhelmingly adopted Bebel's motion. Having reached the zenith of his
power, Bebel could now afford to soothe Engels' anger by recommending
that Kautsky write the standard commentary to the new program. Despite
Bebel's show of force, Engels' plan had worked: Lassallean phrases were
omitted, Liebknecht had been demoted, and his pupil Kautsky had been
installed as the "official" party theorist in Germany.
As adopted, the 1891 Erfurt Program consisted of two major parts: a
"theoretical-Marxist" portion based on Kautsky's amended proposal;
and a "practical part," drafted jointly by Bernstein and Engels. The
theoretical portion enshrined the Marxist doctrine of class struggle with
its "inevitable" socialist telos. Time was on the side of the proletariat, for as
capitalist society moved ever closer to its revolutionary demise, the "final
goal" of social democracy would take shape in the "transformation of
capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social
ownership, and the transformation of the commodity production into one
for and by society- a socialist form of production." Hence, the task of the
party was defined as "enlightening the proletariat about both its historical
role in the revolutionary class struggle" and its "inevitable goal."79
Bearing the fingerprints of Bernstein, the "practical" part of the Erfurt
Program represented a "social democratic program of action," and
consisted of concrete demands like reform of discriminatory electoral
laws, the establishment of popular self-government, education, and social
policy.80 Calling for both the extension of political democracy and the
implementation of fair labor laws, Bernstein's rather moderate portion of
the Erfurt Program stood in marked contrast to the radical language of its
"theoretical" part. Reflecting Engels' solution of endorsing tactical
reformism "on the way" to revolution, the document did little to bridge
the party's growing gap between radical theory and gradualist practice.
Thus, German social democracy missed an early historical chance to
remedy this ultimately fatal dualism.
78
MEW 22, p. 235.
79
Karl Kautsky, Das Erfurter Programm, 20th ed. (Berlin: Dietz, 1980), pp. 106, 125-127,
129-140, 222-223.
80
Ibid., pp. 255-258.
 Persecution and exile 65
In the end, Engels revealed that his overall concerns with the program's
"Marxist character" outweighed his political instincts. Still, there is
evidence that he remained aware of the potential harm that the widening
theory-practice gap could do to the future unity of the labor movement.81
While invoking a spurious ideological unity in the name of "Marxism,"
the incompatibility of the Erfurt Program's two main portions nonetheless
signalled a renewal of the 1875 Gotha compromise between radical theory
and reformist practice within the authoritarian political framework of
Wilhelmine Germany. But it also gave expression to the party's growing
theoretical fatigue and its lack of critical self-reflection. These ominious
developments increasingly impacted Bernstein's intellectual evolvement,
providing the context of his emerging quest for "evolutionary socialism."
81
Engels in MEW 38, p. 183.
 The "Revisionist Controversy5

Catching the "British disease"

Bernstein spent the exciting months leading from the lapse of the
anti-socialist laws to the drafting of the Erfurt Party Program at Engels'
side in London. In retrospect, it is impossible to say whether Bernstein
unconsciously translated his mentor's purely tactical support of parlia-
mentary elections and the "peaceful" transformation of capitalist society
into an endorsement of "evolutionism" in principle. A series of articles in
Der Sozialdemokraty entitled "Klippen" ("cliffs"), written under his
pseudonym "Leo" in the spring of 1890, illustrates Bernstein's ambiguity
on this point.l On one hand, he emphasized the heightened parliamentary
responsibility of the SPD as a result of the elections, while on the other, he
explicitly reaffirmed the party's commitment to revolution, warning
against the possible degeneration of reformism into "parliamentary
cretinism."2
Throughout this hectic period, however, Bernstein never neglected his
burgeoning contacts in various branches of the British labor movement.
Moreover, as his scholarship on seventeenth-century British radicalism
grew in stature, so did his emotional connection to his adopted country.
Overcoming initial cultural and linguistic barriers, his political outlook
became increasingly "British" in its admiration for England's basic
liberties, its parliamentarianism, and its inclination toward piecemeal
social reformism. Bernstein's growing "anglophilia" raises a question
frequently asked by historians of socialist thought: what is the extent of
British political influence on the genesis of his revisionism? A number of
Bernstein scholars have argued that it was the impact of the Fabian
socialists that ultimately opened the way to his revisionist Wende
("turn").3

1
Leo (Bernstein), "Klippen," Der Sozialdemokrat (April 12, 1890; May 3 and 24, 1890).
2
See Henry Tudor, "Introduction," in MS, p. 7.
3
See, for example, DDS', Hirsch, Der "Fabier" Eduard Bernstein; Frei, Fabianismus und
Bernstein'scher Revisionisms 1884-1900.

66
 The "Revisionist Controversy" 67
At first glance, it indeed appears that Bernstein's revisionism heavily
relied on Sidney Webb's organicist and scientistic claims regarding the
importance of "objective social criteria" that allowed for a prescriptive
science of politics.4 Largely a middle-class movement of socialist intellec-
tuals, the Fabians, too, argued for a democratic, "evolutionary" recon-
struction of society on the basis of universalist, ethical imperatives.
Bernstein, however, vehemently denied strong Fabian influences on his
political thought. While conceding the favorable impression made on him
by Fabians like the Webbs and George Bernard Shaw, and even admit-
ting on occasion that their evolutionary model had "expanded his
theoretical horizon," he nonetheless insisted that Fabian arguments did
not serve as the main intellectual source of his own "revisionist"
enterprise.5 As he was known for always scrupulously acknowledging his
theoretical influences, Bernstein's claim ought to be taken seriously.
Moreover, there is indeed some evidence for his assertion: as late as 1896,
he assailed the "confused nature of Fabian eclecticism," criticizing
Fabian utilitarian, visionless pragmatism for its lack of core principles.6 In
fact, the Fabian tendency toward atheoretical instrumentalism and
administrative bureaucratism forced the German exile to explore in more
detail the inherent tension in reformism between ethical ideals and
political expedience.7 Granting Bernstein some theoretical detachment
from Fabianism, the fact remairs that he openly admired Sidney Webb's
intellectual stature and his almost encyclopedic memory. On several
occasions, he praised Webb's remarkable talents in parrying the some-
times openly hostile questions posed by his learned lecture audience.8
Bernstein himself was a regular lecturer at meetings of the Fabian society,
and he occasionally dined at the homes of the Webbs, George Bernard
Shaw, and Edward Pease. So, undoubtedly, some "Fabianism" must have
rubbed off on him.
But even if we concede that Bernstein was not a fully fledged "Fabian
convert," what about the claim that he spoke with the eclectic voice of a
Benthamite Philosophic Radical?9 There is no doubt that his later views on
foreign policy and internationalism resembled the ethical and political
positions held by British Radicals like Richard Cobden, the early apostle of
4
C. E. Hill, "Sidney Webb and the Common Good: 1887-1889/' in History of Political
Thought 14.4 (Winter 1993), pp. 593-594.
5
Eduard Bernstein, "Zur Geschichte des Revisionisms," n. d., in Bernstein A, A43.
6
Eduard Bernstein, "General Observations on Utopianism and Eclecticism," MS, p. 77.
7
Bernstein, My Years of Exile, pp. 274-276.
8
Ibid., p. 242.
9
Fletcher, Revisionism and Empire, p. 184; "British Radicalism and German Revisionism:
The Case of Eduard Bernstein," in TJie International History Review 4.3 (1982), pp.
339-370; and Markku Hyrkkanen, Sozialistische Kolonialpolitik: Eduard Bernsteins Stellung
zur Kolonialpolitik und zum Imperialismus 1882-1914 (Helsinki: SHS, 1986).
68 Preparation
Free Trade and founder of the Anti-Corn Law League. 10 Bernstein, who
could never quite warm up to the ascetic Fabian conception of a Puritan
socialism built mainly on administrative efficiency and sound bookkeep-
ing, may have aligned himself instead with the refined aestheticism of the
Philosophic Radicals - a clear departure from Beatrice Webb's puritan
suspicion of the pleasures of material consumption and high culture.
But the intellectual influences on Bernstein during his London exile
were not confined to the principles of Philosophic Radicalism alone.
Wide-ranging in his tastes, he read any radical pamphlet he could lay his
hands on, and frequently attended the political speeches of British trade
union leaders, atheistic free-thinkers, and Christian socialists, 11 thus
absorbing many features of the British "Common Weal" tradition derived
from Coleridge, Owen, Kingsley, Ruskin, and J. S. Mill.12 Bernstein also
made the acquaintance of renowned poet and Socialist Leaguer, William
Morris (who, in 1883, had published his best-selling Utopian novel, News
From Nowhere), and struck a lasting friendship with the Laborite Ramsay
MacDonald, the future British prime minister. Indeed, at the 1893
Bradford Founding Conference of MacDonald's Independent Labour
Party, organized with the help of Keir Hardie, Bernstein was a noted
guest-of-honor.
In sum, then, establishing a single, definite link between Bernstein's
later revisionism and a distinct intellectual source within Britain's radical
tradition would appear to be an impossible enterprise. Suffice it to say that
he did catch the "British disease," and hence, to some extent, absorbed
the left-liberal "virus." As will be shown below, many features of
Bernstein's evolutionary socialism were nourished by the same all-
embracing scientific and ethical Victorian evolutionary intellectual cli-
mate that in the last years of the century gave birth to the "New
Liberalism" of progressive political thinkers like L. T. Hobhouse and J. A.
Hobson. Indeed, Bernstein became a personal friend of H. W. Massing-
ham and other prominent members of the New Liberal "Rainbow
Circle," 13 and he frequently contributed articles to the group's literary
outgrowths, the Progressive Review and The Nation.1*
10
See Roger Fletcher, "Cobden as Educator: The Free-Trade Internationalism of Eduard
Bernstein," in The American Historical Review 83 (1983), pp. 561-578; "Bernstein in
Britain: Revisionism and Foreign Affairs," in The International History Review 1 (1979),
pp. 349-375; and "British Radicalism and German Revisionism: The Case of Eduard
Bernstein," in The International History Review 4 (1982), pp. 339-370.
11
Bernstein, My Years of Exile, pp. 230-249.
12
See Peter Beilharz, Labour's Utopias (London: Routledge, 1992).
13
Later, Bernstein personally revised and prefaced the German edition of Wallas' Human
Nature in Politics. See Peter Clarke, Liberals and Social Democrats (Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1978), p. 152.
14
David Blaazer, The Popular Front and the Progressive Tradition: Socialists, Liberals, and the
Quest for Unity, 1884-1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992), p. 58.
 The "Revisionist Controversy" 69
It was the combination of Bernstein's tight progressive network of social
acquaintances, his regular visits to left-liberal societies like the national
liberal club, and his long discussions with a variety of "social reformers"
that facilitated the reawakening of the old liberal ideals of his youth.15 The
evolutionary language of ethical perfectability and rational self-control of
late-Victorian liberalism became the much-cherished standard for his
own cultural and social values. He began to speak favorably of the
"urbane tone of British literature" with its air of cultural superiority, its
dry humor, and its Humean fondness for the proper "refinement of
tastes."16 At the same time, Bernstein appreciated that the English
language had remained "far more colloquial than German," allowing for
a "directness and natural power of expression the want of which is often
felt in German."17 Identifying with Britain's long political tradition of free
expression and public agitation, Bernstein admired the diversity of
opinions expressed in British periodicals and journals.
Most of all, however, he noted the social achievements made possible
by the English workers' practical, utilitarian point of view.18 He spoke in
glowing terms of the good relationship between British labor leaders and
representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie, arguing that "such a marriage of
convenience" had contributed to the success of English piecemeal
reformism.19 For Bernstein, the evolving British model proved the
possibility of mutually agreeable pacts between capital and labor, inspir-
ing him to communicate his observations to his German party comrades.
Nonetheless, interpretations of Bernstein's Wende as a wholesale
"product of his British exile," push too far.20 Rather than "turning him
into a British liberal," Bernstein's twelve years of British exile helped him
to perceive the possible theoretical compatibility of a left-liberalism and
(Marxist) socialist conceptions, and thereby prompted the start of his
lifelong quest for the realization of an evolutionary socialism- in Germany.
Even years after his arrival in London, he confided to Engels that his
greatest wish remained an eventual return to his home country, for
"working abroad" ultimately remained for him "an aimless enterprise."21
Indeed, not everything British turned out to be pleasant for Bernstein.
Soon after his arrival in England, he found his articles attacked by Henry
Hyndman and Ernest Belfort Bax of the dogmatic Social Democratic
Federation (SDF). Both "Marxists" had previously provoked a number
15
Bernstein, My Years of Exile, pp. 253-254.
16
Ibid., p. 204.
17
Ibid., p. 269.
18
Ibid., pp. 276-278.
19
See, for example, Eduard Bernstein, "Briefe aus England," in NZ 9 (1890/91), p. 25.
20
See, for example, Luxemburg, Reform and Revolution; and Hirsch, Der "Fabier" Eduard
Bernstein.
21
Bernstein cited in EB, p. 64.
70 Preparation
of nasty clashes with the founders of scientific socialism themselves. Bax,
who eventually emerged as the first outspoken critic of Bernstein's
"revisionist" views, was an eccentric personality even by British stan-
dards. An outspoken atheist and wild-eyed republican, he had adopted
the French revolutionary hero Marat as his romantic patron saint in his
declared mission of bringing "real socialism" to England. Taking delight
in controversial debates that frequently ended in shouting matches, and
never embarrassed about contradicting his previous arguments, Bax
enjoyed antagonizing his "radical" company. For example, he deliberate-
ly touched off a lengthy discussion in left circles on the question of the
status of women in British society. Arguing that in England "men actually
constitute the downtrodden sex," Bax objected fiercely to the pro-
feminist legislative proposals of his leftist friends.22 No surprise, then, that
his social romanticism clashed with Bernstein's empiricist progressivism,
often culminating in Bax's acerbic attacks on the German exile's "dried-
up" and "soulless" socialism.
As the members of Britain's "official Marxist party" continued their
verbal broadsides against the new exile, both Engels and Kautsky
encouraged Bernstein to strike back. Seemingly rattled by events, and
severely overworked, Bernstein suffered a nervous breakdown that inter-
rupted his daily routine for months. Increasingly aware that the vulgar-
Marxist slogans of the SDF resembled those of the SPD, his anger at such
"misrepresentations of Marxist theory" gave way to a general uneasiness
about some Marxist principles. Slowly, he began to retreat behind a stone
wall of skepticism. More and more, Bernstein's letters and articles came to
reflect his displeasure with "certain formulas of dogmatic Marxists."23
Engels quickly discovered his protege's growing liberal sympathies,
intimating to Kautsky that Bernstein seemed to have lost his fine political
instincts and was becoming increasingly "academic" in his approach.24 In
a letter to Bebel, the "General" complained that Ede sometimes displayed
"the manner of a small shopkeeper . . . At times, I think the old Aaron
[Bernstein's liberal uncle] is standing in front of me." 25 Still, despite his
students' lingering "pessimism," Engels continued to insist that there was
no need to worry about Bernstein's apparent seduction by liberal and
Fabian ideas. On several occasions, Engels reassured his German com-
rades that the situation was definitely "manageable."26
22
Bernstein, My Years of Exile.
23
Bernstein to Kautsky Qune 26, 1891), cited in Steinberg, "Herausbildungdes Revisionis-
mus von Eduard Bernstein," in Horst Heimann and Thomas Meyer, eds. Bernstein und
der demokratische Sozialismus (Berlin, Bonn: Dietz, 1978), p. 44.
24
Engels to Kautsky (November 3, 1893), MEW 39, p. 161.
25
Engels to Bebel (October 12, 1893), Bebel BWE, p. 718.
26
Bernstein to Kautsky, (November 9, 1898), Adler A. See also, PS, p. 7.
 The "Revisionist Controversy" 71
In fact, all of Bernstein's major studies written during this period
found Engels' lavish praise and full approval.27 Even in 1894, when
Engels privately called Bernstein's critical review of Marx's posthum-
ously published volume III of Capital "highly confused," he never
attacked his pupil in public. Bernstein remained a regular at Engels'
private Sunday night social gatherings which allowed him to engage in
a series of political debates with Engels' many progressive guests. It
was a time when Bernstein could rub shoulders with a whole range of
thinkers along the political spectrum, from democratic republicans like
Eugen Oswald to Marx's shady son-in-law Edward Aveling, and
Charles Kingsley, the English "Father of Christian Socialism." These
conversations, occurring under Engels' watchful eye, proved to be
immensely important for developing Bernstein's increasingly critical
socialist theory.28
Engels' unwavering confidence in his Berliner friend remained firm to
the last; this was reflected by his will, in which he appointed Bernstein and
Bebel as joint executors of his literary estate. On August 27, 1895,
seventeen days after Engels' secular funeral, Bernstein, accompanied by
Marx's daughter Eleanor and other close friends of the extended "fam-
ily," committed his ashes to the ocean waves offshore of Eastbourne.29
Engels' death left the German labor movement without a single authori-
tative voice in theoretical matters - a dire predicament accurately
captured by SPD party secretary Ignaz Auer: "The Old Man is irreplace-
able in questions of scriptural interpretation. With all due respect for the
younger Church Fathers, the rich experience and authority of Engels is
absent.. . Accordingly, we'll have to do without a 'Source of Truth' for a
while, which may turn out to be a quite unpleasant experience."30 Auer's
fears were borne out within only three years.

First revisionist stirrings

Although, by the middle of the 1890s, "Marxism" and "socialism" had
indeed become synonymous in the minds of most people, the political
practice of the German labor movement continued in almost anti-Marxist
fashion. In contrast to Marxist theory, the day-to-day business of the
political parties of the working class and its rapidly growing trade unions
consisted of making small, gradual steps toward wresting political rights
27
See, for example, Engels' praise of Bernstein's Lassalle biography, MEW 38, pp. 170,
235.
28
Bernstein, My Years of Exile, pp. 193-220.
29
Ibid., p . 1 9 2 .
30
AdlerBW, pp. 189-190.
72 Preparation
from the hands of the German "autocratic, half-absolutist, pseudo-
constitutional state," 31 relying on reformist measures aimed at a gradual
transformation of bourgeois society through the ballot box. Ordinary
labor activists found themselves pursuing very concrete and immediate
ends, such as fighting restrictive electoral laws, demanding increased pay,
calling for a shorter working day, and lobbying for more democratic
factory laws.
The Marxist leaders of social democracy followed Bebel's tactic of
revolutionary attentisme, yet showed no intention of replacing Marxist
ideology with a liberal-democratic theory more closely aligned with
reformist practice. Realizing the tactical and pedagogical power inherent
in Marx's apocalyptic vision, even reform-minded party Praktiker often
turned a blind eye to the vast gap separating revolutionary Marxist
theory and reformist practice - just as orthodox theorists tended to
downplay the fundamentally reformist character of the movement.
Never mind that Marxism's pessimistic assessment of capitalist develop-
ment no longer corresponded to the new economic and political condi-
tions offin-de-siecleEurope. As long as Marxist teleology contributed to
labor unity and the political effectiveness of the working class, neither
radical nor moderate party leaders so much as blinked. As Hans-Ulrich
Wehler has noted, this SPD tactic of revolutionary attentisme contributed
indirectly to the stabilisation of the German political and social system as
a whole.32
In the last decade of the nineteenth century, however, the uneasiness of
some European socialists with the widening theory-practice gap began to
be translated into concrete attacks against Marxist theory. In Germany,
emboldened by the party's stronger tactical emphasis on "Praxis"
dissenters soon found public outlets for questioning the value of "theory"
in general. At the 1895 Breslau Party Congress, Georg von Vollmar
openly favored "practical agitation" at the expense of "excessive dealings
with matters of gray theory." In addition, by interpreting Engels'
short-term tactics of operating within the existing parliamentarian par-
ameters of the Wilhelmine Empire as a "proven" long-term socialist
strategy, the Praktiker were calling into question the very nature of the
labor movement itself. Was the SPD still an exclusive class party, as Karl
Kautsky and other orthodox Marxists claimed? Or, given the iron logic of
electoral competition, should social democracy actively search for contact
with, and reach out to non-proletarian classes like, the peasantry and the
petty bourgeoisie?
Bernstein increasingly recognized the significance of these questions,
31
Wehler, The German Empire, p. 52.
32
Ibid., p. 116.
 The "Revisionist Controversy" 73
and began moving slowly toward a "reformist" answer. During the
1893 Prussian state elections, for example, he criticized the party's
decision to boycott elections held under the discriminatory Prussian
three-class franchise. Arguing that limited electoral alliances with the
liberals would help the party to gain additional seats in the state
parliament, Bernstein felt that Bebel's intransigence on this issue only
made sense in situations where nothing could be gained from a compro-
mise.33 For the first time, he explicitly questioned Bebel's strategy of
revolutionary attentisme - the celebrated retreat into political isolation
and the fatalistic awaiting of the capitalist breakdown. Such expecta-
tions, he warned, might prevent the party from "doing whatever is
necessary to foster the interest of the working class."34 On the other
hand, as Bernstein himself clearly realized, forging alliances for purely
instrumental reasons could turn parliamentarianism from a means to an
end into "an end in itself."35 In other words, Bernstein's occasional
"compromise" might turn into an established "policy of compromise,"
with electoral instrumentalism habitually overriding socialist principles.
Caught between the Scylla of isolation and political ineffectiveness and
the Charybdis of reformist instrumentalism, Bernstein found himself
face to face with the major obstacle to any workable version of evol-
utionary socialism.
The Bavarian reformist Georg von Vollmar saw the class issue in a more
clear-cut fashion. Challenging the basic Marxist assumptions of party
leader August Bebel, who delighted in referring to bourgeois society and
its political order as the "deadly enemy of social democracy,"36 Praktiker
clearly favored the transformation of the SPD's circumscribed status as a
"class party" into a more inclusive "people's party." Moreover, they
expressed their impatience with "old revolutionary slogans" that, in their
opinion, stifled the further growth of the party. In unequivocal terms, the
reformists demanded a thorough "revision" of the "outdated" theoretical
part of the 1891 Erfurt Program.
Retreating into his "proletarian standpoint," Kautsky sniped at Voll-
mar's "opportunist tactics" and categorically rejected any attempts to
"turn German social democracy from a party of the fighting proletariat
into an eclectic swamp of frustrated fellows."37 Still in the minority,
outspoken Praktiker like Breslau Reichstag representative Bruno Schon-
lank nonetheless served the party leadership with a stern warning: "The
33
See Henry Tudor, "Introduction," in MS, pp. 8-9.
34
Bernstein cited in ibid., p. 8.
35
Eduard Bernstein, "Die preussischen Landtagswahlen und die Sozialdemokratie," in NZ
11.2 (1893), p. 777.
36
Bebel cited in Carsten, August Bebel und die Organisation der Massen, p. 189.
37
Karl Kautsky, "Die Breslauer Resolution und ihre Kritik," NZ 14.1 (1895/96), p. 186.
74 Preparation
revision of our old conceptions [of socialism] continues inexorably; the
dogged fanaticism of our party dogmatists will soon crumble." 38
Bernstein's own critique of Marxist orthodoxy was undoubtedly in-
fluenced by the Praktiker's arguments, which, he believed, reflected the
legitimate demand for a "modernization" of Marxist theory. Hence,
while the accelerated speed of industrialization in Germany represented
a powerful force in the final emergence of Marxist "revisionism," it
would be a mistake to underestimate the impact of political ideas on the
development of Bernstein's evolutionary socialism.39
Besides its debt to British progressivism, Bernstein's liberal socialism
owed much to the German neo-Kantian tradition of Friedrich Albert
Lange, and to both French and Italian ethical socialism.40 Ultimately,
however, it was the powerful combination of Bernstein's broadminded
character and his prominent position within the SPD party hierarchy
that made his revisionist critique more successful than any other previ-
ous attempt. Representing the much admired model of German social
democracy, Bernstein and his renowned stature as a major socialist
thinker provided other European "revisionists" with the necessary legit-
imation for branching out into what was to become an amazing variety of
autonomous and semi-independent "revisionist schools."

The critique of socialist reason

Almost thirty years after the outbreak of the "Revisionist Controversy"
in the SPD, Bernstein remarked that the seeds of his theoretical interven-
tion were sown as early as 1891.41 Hence, it is entirely useless to search in
Bernstein's writings for the one document that might be considered the
"birth certificate of revisionism."42 Rather, Bernstein arrived at his new
position only gradually, in the course of several years.43 Indeed, he did
not realize the full extent of his changed perspective until early 1897,
when, during a lecture to the Fabian society entitled "What Marx Really

38
Protokoll iiber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutsch-
lands3 abgehalten zu Frankfurt vom 21-27 Oktober 1894 (Berlin, 1894), p. 152.
39
A recent structuralist argument for the emergence of Bernstein's revisionism has been
advanced by Hyrkkanen, Sozialistische Kolonialpolitik, pp. 190-195. However, as pointed
out by Woodruff D. Smith's review of Hyrkkanen's study (1988), limiting Bernstein's
theory to purely "objective social forces" misses the impact of particular ideas and
thinkers on Bernstein's thought (American Historical Review 93 A, p. 1,071).
40
For a comprehensive "influence analysis" of Bernstein's political thought, see Gustaf-
sson, Marxismus und Revisionismus.
41
ES, p. 20.
42
Schelz-Brandenburg, EduardBernstein undKarlKautsky,p. 292; and Gilcher-Holtey, Das
Mandat des Intellektuellen, p p . 1 2 0 - 1 2 1 .
43
Bernstein to Bebel (October 20, 1898) in MS, p. 325.
 The "Revisionist Controversy" 75
Taught/' he saw that he could no longer accept certain Marxist prin-
ciples:
I told myself secretly that this could not go on. It is idle to attempt to reconcile the
irreconcilable. The vital thing is to be clear as to where Marx is still right and where
he is not. If we jettison the latter, we serve Marx's memory better than when (as I
did and as many still do) we stretch his theory until it will prove anything. Because
then it proves nothing.44
Between 1890 and 1891 3 Bernstein reviewed a number of new studies on
political economy for Neue Zeit, including Gerhard von Schulze-Gaver-
nitz's On Social Peace, and Julius Wolfs Socialism and the Capitalist
Economic Order. Both books focused on the likely course of future
economic development and severely criticized the Marxist "theory of
breakdown" - the conception that inherent contradictions at the econ-
omic base would inevitably lead to ever-widening economic crises
culminating in a general collapse of capitalist society. Although his review
skillfully employed Marx's method to modify Wolf and von Gavernitz's
analysis, Bernstein secretly came to agree with the general drift of their
arguments.45
A year later, Bernstein turned his attention to the writings of the
neo-Kantian socialist philosopher F. A. Lange, the radical-liberal hero of
his ex-employer Hochberg. Impressed with the logic of its Kantian ethics
and pleasantly surprised by its author's familiarity with J. S. Mill and the
British liberal tradition, Bernstein approved of Lange's important 1865
study, The Labor Question. Calling it a "progressive program of action
which has removed Lassalle's ambiguities,"46 Bernstein's overall favor-
able analysis of Lange's social theory resulted in a lengthy three-part
article in Neue Zeit, entitled "In Honor of Friedrich Albert Lange."47
Lauding the Duisburg scholar for both his theoretical sophistication and
his role as mediator between progressive parts of the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat, Bernstein was unaware that he would soon share Lange's
desire to link liberalism and socialism.48 He also came to adopt Lange's
critical stance toward G. W. F. Hegel's philosophy of "dialectical
44
Ibid. For a translation of this essay, see H. Kendall Rogers, "Eduard Bernstein Speaks to
the Fabians: A Turning-Point in Social Democratic Thought?," in International Review of
Social History 28 (1983), pp. 320-338.
45
ES, p. 21.
46
Eduard Bernstein, "Zur Wurdigung Friedrich Albert Langes," in NZ 10.2 (1892), p.
108.
47
Ibid., pp. 68-78, 101-109, 132-141. Bernstein's renewed interest in Lange was sparked
in early 1892, while reading Lange's major works in the British Museum. He also wrote a
review of O. A. Ellisen's Lange biography, Friedrich Albert Lange. Bine Lebensbeschreibung
(Leipzig, 1891).
48
I n t h e wake of the 1866 Prussian victory over Austria, t h e frustrated L a n g e left G e r m a n
labor politics a n d accepted a chair in philosophy at Zurich University.
76 Preparation
pitfalls," expressing for the first time in public his Lange-influenced
methodological doubts about Marxist doctrine. In particular, Bernstein
began to share Lange's conviction that Marxism could not lay a priori
claims to absolute "truths," since, as a science, it was inherently open to
future refutations by the new findings of scientific enquiries.49 Finally, the
1894 posthumous publication of the disappointing volume III of Marx's
Capital also seemed to support Lange's earlier warning that actual social
development never proceeded with the "same precision and symmetry as
it does in speculative construction."50 The negative reactions to volume
III of Capital by outstanding political economists from both within and
without social democracy enhanced Bernstein's own suspicion that Marx,
in typically Hegelian "dialectical fashion," had engaged in a "conceptual
stretching" of his main categories in order to correct obvious theoretical
problems in his labor theory of value.
And there was yet another important indication of existing holes in
Marx's theory. The cumulative effects of the end of the long economic
stagnation in Germany and the implementation of the government's
social policies showed positive effects on the living standard of the
working class.51 Moreover, between 1882 and 1895 alone, the German
industrial working class had grown by almost two million. Much faster
than its European neighbors, the German Empire had become an
industrialized country, soon surpassing the coal and steel production of its
closest rivals, France and Britain.52 The rapid economic development in
Germany seemed to bolster what Bernstein had observed in England on a
daily basis: industrialization breeds political and economic reformism,
which, in turn, strengthens the expansion of democratic rights and
weakens old, class-based privileges. Relating the path of industrializing
countries to a general "evolutionary progress," Bernstein felt that the
revolutionary road of 1789 and 1848 had ceased to be a realistic option.
The strong anti-insurrectionary language of his 1895 afterword to Louis
Heretier's History of the 1848 French Revolution^3 and his 1897 review
article on Scipio Sighele's Crowd Psychology and Mass Crime, show that he
began to doubt the applicability of early nineteenth-century revolutionary
principles tofin-de-sieclesocial conditions.
The repeated warnings of his late friend and mentor, Karl Hochberg,
49
Eduard Bernstein, "Zum zehnjahrigen Bestand der Neuen Zeit," in NZ 11.1 (1892/93),
p. 10.
50
PS, p. 31.
51
Georg Fiilberth, "Zur Genese des Revisionismus in der deutschen Sozialdemokratie vor
1914," in Das Argument 13.1-2 (March 1971), p. 3.
52
EB, p. 46.
53
For both Bo Gustafsson (1972, p. 90) and Thomas Meyer (1977, p. 137), Bernstein's
1895 afterword to Heretier's study represents the "decisive break with Marxism."
 The "Revisionist Controversy" 77
that "capitalist society may turn out to be much more adaptable than you
think," which, in 1882, Bernstein had simply shrugged off as "regrettable
bourgeois hesitancy," had come back to haunt him.54 In the end,
Bernstein abandoned his belief in the eventual "collapse" of capitalism,
the core principle of revolutionary attentisme which he had held since
Bebel's memorable 1872 Berlin speech. Instead, he began to suspect that
Marx's and Engels' "scientific socialism" was, in fact, a sophisticated
form of dogmatism which assailed the scientific integrity of socialism.
"[T]he party's responsibilities increase with its power, and so does the
need to be completely clear about where one stands. For this reason, a
close examination of our [Marxist] theory is more vital today than ever
before."55
However, Bernstein's theoretical qualms blinded him to the practical
consequences that might ensue from such a thorough "revision" of
Marxist theory. He recognized only later that, "In the midst of my
theoretical struggle, I allowed myself to be carried away and burden my
party with more than it could handle. This was undoubtedly a significant
political mistake."56 Indeed, over the decades of its existence, the party
leadership - exemplified by August Bebel - had fought hard to reap the
benefits of an ideologically unified labor movement. Empirical evidence
contrary to Marxist expectations would punch holes in its economic
determinism and thus weaken the powerful eschatological expectations of
the masses, who had been encouraged to place an almost religious faith in
the beneficial workings of Marx's "objective, historical laws."57
With his characteristic intellectual honesty that bordered on political
naivete, Bernstein displayed the heart of a dedicated theorist who was
ready to blame the party's Marxist rhetoric for the existing theory-practice
gap, and not its socialist reformism. Ignaz Auer, who did not mind the
beneficial political effects of a quasi-theological "Marxist faith," could
only marvel at Bernstein's "strategical blunder" at calling the party's
bluff: "Do you really think that a party, resting onfiftyyears of literature
and forty years of organization, can reverse its theory at the snap of your
fingers? What you demand, my dear Ede, one does neither openly admit
nor formally vote on; one simply does it."58 Undeterred, Bernstein put his
spotless reputation on the line and, only two years after Engels' death,
took the first steps toward "revising Marxism."
Throughout this early revisionist period, he was engaged in a precarious
54
ES, pp. 23-24.
55
Bernstein to Bebel (October 20, 1898) in MS, p. 327.
56
ES, p. 37.
57
Kautsky to Bernstein (February 26, 1898), Kautsky Archive, IISH, C181.
58
Ignaz Auer cited in Bernstein, Ignaz Auer•, p. 63.
78 Preparation
balancing act, desperately seeking to avoid the dangers of both endanger-
ing party unity and losing his theoretical influence. Thus, with the threat
of expulsion permanently hanging over him, Bernstein cautiously reassur-
ed Kautsky that he was neither fighting "the basic principles of historical
materialism, nor the doctrine of class struggle, nor the character of social
democracy as the party of the proletariat."59 Similarly, he declared that he
had no intention of revising the practical portion of the party program.
Rather, his goal was theoretical revision: the effort "to create unity of theory
and reality, of formulation and action."60 Differing fundamentally from
Kautsky's defensive conception of the theorist as guardian of the doctrinal
purity of theory, Bernstein formulated a Kant-influenced "critique of
socialist reason" 61 which profoundly questioned the main theoretical
assumptions and predictions of Engels' "scientific socialism."
Yet he did not set out to modify Marxist theory simply in order to fit the
atheoretical reformism of the party Praktiker. For Bernstein, political
theory was neither an edifying afterthought nor a justification for instru-
mentalist political practice. Rather, he considered the organic link
between theory and practice as one in which theory preceded practice, not
the other way around.62 Insisting that the party's revolutionary language
was deliberately designed to "fudge categories,"63 Bernstein castigated
Bebel's and Kautsky's "supramarxist cant." 64 In his opinion, Kautsky
stifled the all-important process of open "social scientific inquiry" by
consecrating a vulgarized Marxism of metaphysical categories devoid of
any empirical validity. Bernstein frequently shored up his own arguments
by skillfully combining his harsh critique of the "existing gaps and
contradictions in Marxist theory" with timely invocations of carefully
selected passages from Engels' later writings.65
In particular, he loved to cite Engels' "final testament" - his 1895
preface to Marx's The Class Struggles in France - without mentioning that
Liebknecht had trimmed it in such a fashion that Engels was made to
appear "a peaceful worshipper of legality at any price." 66 It is difficult to
come to a final judgment on why Bernstein chose to disregard the
remaining revolutionary core underlying his mentor's mantle of tactical
moderation. Did he need the aura of Marxism to be taken seriously as a

59
Bernstein to Kautsky (October 27, 1898), AdlerA.
60
Bernstein to Bebel (October 20, 1898) in MS, p. 324.
61
Bernstein to Kautsky (November 9, 1898), AdlerA.
62
Eduard Bernstein, "Ein Vorwort zur Programmrevision," in SM 8 (1904), p. 24.
63
Bernstein to Bebel (October 20, 1898) in MS, p. 324.
64
Eduard Bernstein, "Vom deutschen Arbeiter einst und jetzt" SM 10 (1904), p. 175.
65
PS, p. 28.
66
Engels to Karl Kautsky, in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Selected Correspondence
(Moscow: Progress Publishers, n. d.), p. 461.
 The "Revisionist Controversy" 79
theorist? Was he truly convinced that Engels had moved closer to the
kind of evolutionary socialism he had gradually come to espouse himself?
Henry Tudor notes that one important reason for his misreading of
Engels was Bernstein's reconceptualization of the relationship between
means and ends.67 For Engels, switching political tactics was but a sober
act of calculation designed to find the most effective mode of action for
the SPD. There were no ethical principles involved in calculating the
revolutionary coming of socialism along "strict mathematical laws":
"Setting the moral question aside, as a revolutionary I welcome any
means - both the most violent one and the seemingly most restrained -
that will lead to the end . . . In my opinion, you [Gerson Trier] are
mistaken to turn a purely tactical question into one involving prin-
ciples."68 Bernstein, on the other hand, had begun to reject revolutionary
violence as a means of social change in complex, modern societies,
seeking to escape the amoral, instrumentalist means-end calculations of
the political realist. Sympathetic to Kant's celebrated Enlightenment
notion of the "moral politician," he refused to separate means and ends
for purely tactical advantage.
Emphasizing what he called the "evolutionary side of Marx and
Engels," Bernstein claimed that the adoption of his critical stance would
liberate the party from its dualism and actually lead to a "further
development and elaboration of Marxist doctrine."69 Making Marxist
theory fair game to critical assessments, he validated new forms of socialist
eclecticism which were not only legitimate but, as he saw it, even
preferable. After all, for Bernstein, evolutionism and philosophical eclec-
ticism were part of the socialist heritage. To justify his claim, he again
cited his late mentor Friedrich Engels, who had reminded his comrades
that, "[W]e German socialists are proud to descend from not only Saint-
Simon, Fourier, and Owen, but also from Kant, Fichte, and Hegel."70
Believing that he was working out a coherent view consistent with
"evolutionary" Marxist principles, Bernstein rarely entertained the
thought that he might have irretrievably broken with Marxist doctrine.71
Ultimately, Bernstein formulated three concrete revisionist claims,
published in Neue Zeit and Vorwdrts between 1896 and 1899, in both his
famous series of articles, entitled "Problems of Socialism," and in
67
Tudor, "Introduction," in MS, p. 35.
68
Engels to Gerson Trier (December 18, 1889), MEW37, p. 327.
69
PS, p. 28.
70
Friedrich Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Beijing: Foreign Language Press,
1975), pp. 7-8.
71
For example, during the 1903 Dresden Party Conference he admitted to his "heretical
views" regarding "certain aspects of Marx's thought" (Protokoll 1903 Dresden, pp.
391-396).
80 Preparation
subsequent responses to socialist critics like the Russian emigres George
Plekhanov and Alexander Helphand ("Parvus"), editor of Sdchsische
Arbeiter-Zeitung.12 First, Bernstein directed the brunt of his argument
against the widespread Marxist rhetoric of Bebel's great "Kladderadatsch"
- the inevitable and sudden collapse of bourgeois society due to the
fundamental contradictions in the capitalist mode of production.73 While
he explicitly allowed for the possibility of future "political catastrophes"
like large-scale wars or sustained civil unrest, Bernstein rejected the Erfurt
Program's economic determinism inherent in the idea of terminal
capitalist crises. While there might well be limited crises, empirical
evidence suggested that "we shall no longer be dealing with the old kind of
trade crisis" and, therefore, "[we] will have to throw overboard all
speculations that such a crisis will bring about the great social up-
heaval."74 Suggesting that capitalism was getting better at containing its
own contradictions, Bernstein pointed to the stabilizing role of cartels,
trusts, modern communication, and the international expansion of the
credit system as the main reasons for the unexpected flexibility of
late-nineteenth-century capitalism.
Second, and counterfactually, he argued that, even if Marx was right in
his assertion that economic crises were to become ever more cata-
strophic, and that the SPD would gain power under conditions of a
capitalist breakdown, the party was not prepared to govern without the
bourgeoisie.75 "Social democracy should neither expect nor desire the
imminent collapse of the existing economic system . . . What social
democracy should be doing, and doing for a long time to come, is
organize the working class politically, train it for democracy, and fight for
any and all reforms in the state which are designed to raise the working
class and make the state more democratic."76 Like Engels in his later
work, Bernstein focused on the central importance of what might be
called the "transition problem" in socialist theory.77 But contrary to
Engels, Bernstein turned against the dominant Marxist view that, once
72
The most important of these essays are translated in MS.
73
Bernstein to Kautsky, (October 10, 1898), Adler A.
74
Bernstein, "The Struggle of Social Democracy and Revolution," in MS, p. 166. For an
excellent account of the history of the "breakdown theory" within German social
democracy, see Rudolf Walther, ". . . aber nach der Siindflut kommen wir und nur wir":
"Zusammenbruchstheorie", Marxismus und politisches Defizit in der SPD, 1890-1914
(Frankfurt/Main: Ullstein, 1981); and F. R. Hansen, The Breakdown of Capitalism: A
History of the Idea in Western Marxism, 1883-1983 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1985).
75
Bernstein, "The Conquest of Political Power," in MS, p. 306; and Bernstein, "Critical
Interlude," in ibid., p. 220. See also, PS, pp. 45, 206.
76
Eduard Bernstein, "The Struggle of Social Democracy and the Social Revolution: 2. The
Theory of Collapse and Colonial Policy," in MS, p. 169.
77
Bernstein to Kautsky (June 29, 1896), Kautsky Archive, IISH, DV375.
 The "Revisionist Controversy" 81
5
the economic conditions had sufficiently "matured/ the transition to a
"new society" was, in essence, a political problem that would be solved
by a single act of seizure of political power by the proletariat.78 Rather
than arguing for the wholesale liquidation of the existing capitalist
system, Bernstein opted for "evolution": its gradual democratization via
the extension of political rights. In fact, he believed that "[N]owadays
social democracy can do more as an opposition party than it could if it
suddenly gained control through some catastrophe."79 In his opinion, it
was foolish to tell the working class simply to wait for the "right
moment" in the development of the mode of production and then, in one
blow, seize political power and immediately build the "new socialist
society." Rather, the desired transformation of capitalist society into
socialism would prove to be a painfully slow, evolutionary process, to be
guided by ethical ideals.
No doubt, Bernstein resurrected the old liberal-reformist thesis of
"society growing into socialism," an idea popular with non-Marxist social
democrats in the 1860s, but harshly condemned by Engels as "the old
image of the unencumbered 'evolution' of the existing mess into a socialist
society."80 Here, Bernstein obviously disagreed with his late mentor:
The steady expansion of the sphere of social obligations (i.e. the obligations of the
individual towards society, his corresponding rights, and the obligations of society
towards the individual), the extension of the right of society, as organized in the
nation or the state, to regulate economic life; the growth of democratic self-
government in municipality, district, and province, and the extended responsibili-
ties of these bodies - for me all these things mean development toward socialism,
or, if you will, piecemeal realization of socialism.81
While continuing to reject the "simplistic belief in the creative power of
revolutionary force," Bernstein equally sharply refused to accede to the
political passivity and opportunism of accepting a regime that denied its
subjects basic political rights. As the first necessary "precondition" of
socialism, he called for a "radical break" from the authoritarian political
order of the German Empire - a demand he reiterated throughout the
Wilhelmine Era.82
78
See also Pracht, Parlamentarismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie 1867-1914, p. 240.
79
Ibid., p . 2 2 1 .
80
Engels to Kautsky (July 29, 1891) MEW38, p. 125.
81
Bernstein, "The Struggle of Social Democracy and the Social Revolution: 2. The Theory
of Collapse and Colonial Policy," in MS, p. 168.
82
See, for example, Eduard Bernstein, "Der Stil des Reformismus," in SM 15 (1909), p.
1,225; and Die deutsche Revolution, vol. I (Berlin, 1921), p. 8. For an analysis of
Bernstein's arguments in favor of a thorough democratization of the German Empire as a
premise for a socialist foreign policy, see Hyrkkanen, Sozialistische Kolonialpolitik, pp.
301-334.
82 Preparation
Third, as the result of quantitative research done in connection with the
hotly disputed "Agrarian Question" at the 1894 and 1895 party conferen-
ces, Bernstein threw out Marx's so-called "immiseration thesis." He
denied the existence of a gigantic social simplification process that would
lead to the disappearance of both the middle classes and the peasantry,
leaving the working class more and more impoverished in an ever-
widening process of capital concentration, cartelization, and monopoliz-
ation. Using statistical data drawn from the 1895 Prussian Census,
Bernstein argued that his findings did not support a "polarization" of
society into a small class of capitalists and the proletarian masses.
Contrary to Marxist assumptions, he maintained that the social spectrum
in Prussia had expanded during the 1880s, thus clearly contradicting
Marx's predictions about the "disappearing" middle classes.83 Under the
modern conditions of late-nineteenth-century capitalism, the middle
class was changing in composition and actually growing in complexity. This
insight was especially important, since it served Bernstein as both a
practical criterion for his piecemeal reformism and an empirical base from
which to attack "scientific socialism."
In a famous statement which he later qualified, Bernstein spoke of the
revolutionary "final goal" as bearing no meaning for him, while the daily
struggle of the "movement" was "everything."84 Eager to draw a thick
line through all "imagined final goals," Bernstein asserted that there was
"more socialism in a good factory act than in the nationalization of a whole
group of factories."85 In elevating radical liberal demands to the "far-
reaching general principle of society, the fulfillment of which will be
socialism," Bernstein sought to synthesize socialist and liberal demands:
"For Social Democracy, the defence of civil liberty has always taken
precedence over the fulfillment of any economic postulate. The aim of all
socialist measures, even those that outwardly appear to be coercive
measures, is the development and protection of the free personality."86
"What makes us socialists," Bernstein wrote to the Austrian labor leader
Victor Adler, "is neither a hypothetical future state nor the prospect of the
great general expropriation, but our sense of justice . .. [T]he striving for
equality and justice is . . . the lasting element in our movement which
survives all changes in doctrine."87

83
Eduard Bernstein, "Statement to the 1898 Stuttgart Party Conference," in MS, p. 288.
84
Bernstein, "The Struggle of Social Democracy and the Social Revolution: 2. The Theory
of Collapse and Colonial Policy," in ibid., pp. 168-169.
85
Ibid., p. 168.
86
Ibid., p. 147.
87
Bernstein to Adler, (March 3, 1899), Adler BW, p. 289.
 The "Revisionist Controversy" 83
At the height of the Revisionist Controversy
By 1898, Bernstein's forceful critique of "socialist reason" had, predict-
ably, managed to infuriate the Marxist leadership of the SPD. As the
dispute wore on, Bebel realized that Bernstein had left Marxist grounds
altogether, making more severe future clashes inevitable.88 Although he
commanded great respect in the SPD, Bebel's leadership in the party did
not always go unquestioned. More often than he cared to, he had to
muster his entire political repertoire of persuasion, threats, promises, and
compromises to rally the needed majority behind his decisions. His
outstanding political instincts and charismatic personality notwithstand-
ing, Bebel was in need of theoretical allies who neither encroached on his
political sphere nor caused fractious ideological debates that might
endanger the political unity and effectiveness of the SPD.89
Since the 1891 Erfurt Program, Bebel had relied on Kautsky to play this
role, but their partnership had barely been tested. The unfolding Revi-
sionist Controversy gave them a chance to prove their loyalty to each other
in a genuine crisis situation. Both men realized from the very beginning
that the "Bernstein Affair" constituted an enormous threat to the
ideological hegemony of Marxist theory - and by extension, to their own
leadership posts. In a number of private meetings in the summer of 1898,
Bebel and Kautsky managed to work out a common anti-Bernstein
strategy for the upcoming party conference in Stuttgart.
In the meantime, Bernstein, too, had found a handful of prominent
allies for his cause. Most of them were "PraktikerWixh principles" who
showed some interest in weakening Marxist ideology without jettisoning
socialist theory altogether: Eduard David, a future Interior Minister in the
Weimar Republic; Konrad Schmidt, one of the party's leading social
philosophers and political economists; the influential lawyer, Wolfgang
Heine; and the powerful Reichstag representative, Heinrich Peus. At the
same time, however, the party's extreme left wing led by Parvus and
Luxemburg vowed to use the Stuttgart Party Conference as an arena to
put an end to any form of "bourgeois revisionism," and perhaps even
force Bernstein's expulsion from the SPD.
When the conference opened in October 1898, Kautsky assumed the
role of the party's "chief ideologist," while Bebel kept a watchful eye over
"proper" speaking assignments and the course of the proceedings. At an
opportune moment, he decided to force the issue by reading aloud a
written defense statement that Bernstein - still unable to enter Germany
88
Bebel to Kautsky (September 24, 1898) BebelBWK, p. 111; Bebel to Bernstein (October
22, 1898) MS, p. 330.
89
See Gilcher-Holtey, Das Mandat des Intellektuellen, pp. 263-264.
84 Preparation
without risking arrest - had sent from his London exile. Frequently citing
his mentor Engels, Bernstein's note provided an eloquent summary of his
liberal-socialist views: "The taking of political power cannot be achieved
without political rights, and the most important tactical problem which
social democracy has to solve at the present is, it seems to me, the best way
to extend the political and industrial rights of the German working man." 9 0
Paul Kampffmeyer, a young fellow-revisionist, later wrote that Be-
rnstein's "Stuttgart Letter" showed the orthodox Marxists what they
"really were" but had not dared to admit.91 Bebel saw things differently.
Noting that he fundamentally disagreed with the content of the statement,
he left it to Kautsky to dismantle Bernstein's substantive arguments.
Kautsky's speech, seconded by Liebknecht, turned out to be a great
success with a majority of those conference delegates who soundly
rejected Bernstein's irksome "revisionism." Bernstein's few vocal de-
fenders managed to make themselves heard, but they were too weak and
disorganized to challenge Kautsky's "official" interpretation.
In the end, the conference participants stopped short of following Rosa
Luxemburg's radical call for Bernstein's expulsion. Nevertheless, the
"Bernstein Affaire" provided the twenty-seven-year-old "Red Rosa" with
an opportunity to show her considerable talents. With her sharp intellect
and fiery oratory, she awed the delegates by turning her first major
political appearance into a brilliant defense of Marxist theory from a
radical-left point of view.92 When the dust of the conference finally
settled, most delegates agreed that the debates had fallen far short of
settling the theoretical problems raised by the revisionists. But they also
agreed that revisionism was no cause for serious concern, since, as the
Austrian labor leader Victor Adler put it so aptly, " [T]here is not a single
point ofpolitical practice>, of concrete party tactics, on which Bebel and Auer,
Kautsky and Bernstein would not agree."93
Yet, the theoretical problems raised during the party conference would
soon afford the atheoretical Praktikerin the SPD the excellent opportunity
of questioning the utility of theory altogether. For the time being,
however, Kautsky and Bernstein continued their sharp ideological battles
with seemingly inexhaustible energy in the pages of Vorwdrts and Neue
Zeit. Finally, Kautsky and Adler succeeded in pressuring Bernstein to
write a longer synopsis of his revisionist views. Hastily, Bernstein obliged,
and, in less than twelve weeks, finished his famous "Revisionist Mani-

90
Bernstein, "Statement" in MS, p. 291.
91
Paul Kampffmeyer, "Historisches und Theoretisches zur Sozialdemokratie Revisionis-
mus Bewegung," in SM 8 (1902), p. 354.
92
See Rosa Luxemburg cited in MS, pp. 249-269, 276-305.
93
Adler, "The Party Conference at Stuttgart," in ibid., pp. 316, 319.
 The "Revisionist Controversy" 85
festo," entitled The Preconditions of Socialism. Published in early 1899 and
eventually translated into more than thirty languages, the book contained
the main arguments of Bernstein's early revisionist period. While regard-
ing it as a crucial milestone in his career, Bernstein openly acknowledged
the book's rather narrow conceptual framework. "[The] desire to keep
within reasonable bounds a book primarily intended for workers, together
with the need to finish it within a few weeks, should explain why an
exhaustive treatment of the subject has not even been attempted."94
Contrary to the assessment of later commentators, he explicitly warned
that The Preconditions of Socialism should not be interpreted as "a
programmatic work on a large scale."95 Indeed, the full features of
Bernstein's evolutionary socialism emerged in the form of essays, mono-
graphs, and book reviews, drawn out over two decades. Representing only
the beginnings of his theoretical quest, The Preconditions of Socialism
awaited further detailed explorations of the relationship between social-
ism, social science, liberalism, and ethics.
94
PS, p. 28.
95
ES, p. 30.
Part 2

Vision
 The meaning of socialism

Marxist socialism in the 1890s

The extent to which Bernstein's "revisionism" shook the world of socialist
theory is difficult to imagine today. The Marxism that had given the
workers' movement its ideological coherence during many years of
underground work was being attacked at its very core. As Rosa Luxem-
burg underscored on several occasions, Bernstein's critique of "socialist
reason" was not about "this or that method of struggle, or the use of this
and that set of tactics, but the very existence of the social democratic
movement."1 Nothing less than the "correct" meaning of socialism - as
proclaimed by the guardians of Marxist orthodoxy - was at stake. But
what exactly did "Marxist socialism" mean, given Marx's own sarcastic
admission that he did not consider himself a "Marxist?" Which of his and
Engels' many, often contradictory publications contained the crucial
elements of Marxist doctrine? As became clear in the course of the
revisionist controversy, both Bernstein and his orthodox critics could
readily produce appropriate citations from the founders' work which
seemed to substantiate their opposing claims equally. In fact, Bernstein's
steadfast interpretation of Marx's teachings as a "theory of social
evolution" leaned heavily on selected passages from Marx's Capital and
Engels' later writings, allowing him to build a somewhat credible defense
of his declaration that he was merely attempting a "revision, vision, and
clarification of Marxist socialism."2
As has been pointed out by Alvin Gouldner and a number of other
social critics, the origins of this doctrinal ambiguity in the Marxist
tradition can be traced back to the existence of at least two different
intellectual currents in the Marxist canon.3 Marx and Engels oscillated
between their "critical" stance of denouncing existing social practices and
1
Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution?, p. 8.
2
Eduard Bernstein, "An meine socialistischen Kritiker," in SM 4 (1900), p. 4.
3
Alvin W. Gouldner, The Two Marxisms: Contradictions and Anomalies in the Development of
Theory (New York: Seabury Press, 1980). See also Meyer, Bernsteins konstruktiver
Sozialismus.

89
90 Vision
their more scientific and technological orientation, which championed
working-class interests with reference to an ultimate, comprehensive
world view based on supposedly "objective" causal laws.4 Thus, they
frequently found themselves caught in a tension-filled conjunction pitting
science against politics, theory against practice, determinism against
voluntarism, empiricism against speculative metaphysics, and necessity
against freedom. Marx's own relationship to the empirical method and the
"scientific enterprise" in general, had always been ambiguous: on one
hand, he criticized the "uncritical use of statistics in catalogue-like
eruditions,"5 while on the other, he had praised his own theories as
"essential laws,"6 their truths depending on empirical data, since "facts
furnish the test of theories."7
Bernstein never made a secret of the fact that he preferred the
"scientific" tracts of the mature Marx over the passionate essays of the
youthful Hegelian philosopher of praxis.8 Yet, he was also quick to note
that those theoretical tensions even appeared in Capital, which, despite its
impressive theoretical achievement, ultimately amounted to a "piece of
propaganda . . . that remained unfinished, because the conflict between
propaganda and science made the task more and more difficult for
Marx." 9
Such direct attacks on his mentors' writings, however, were usually
sandwiched between long, reassuring paragraphs signalling Bernstein's
intense loyalty to a "Marxism understood as a general program, a
principle, or an idea of justice."10 Obviously, Bernstein disagreed with
fashionable liberal claims that Marxism had no moral components at all. l!
Ultimately, he developed his revisionism from a historically anchored
perspective which allowed him to employ the detached language of
empiricism against the growing disjuncture between theoretical principles
conceived in the middle of the century and the fundamentally changed
socioeconomic conditions offin-de-siecle Germany: "[T]he standards of
Marx-Engels' theory, which were developed under entirely different
4
See Gouldner, The Two Marxisms, pp. 34-36; and Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the
Working-Class Mentality in Germany, pp. 4-7.
5
Karl Marx, Grundrisse (New York: International, 1973), p. 888.
6
Karl Marx, Capital vol. III. (New York: International, 1967), p. 831.
7
Marx, Grundrisse, p. 119.
8
PS, pp. 28-46.
9
Bernstein to Bebel (October 20, 1898) MS, p. 326.
10
Eduard Bernstein, "Dialektik und Entwicklung," in NZ 17 (1898/99), p. 360.
1!
Recently, R. G. Peffer has offered a particularly sophisticated defense of Marx's moral
perspective in Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1990). His
study particularly contributes to the ongoing discussion on Marxist epistemology, ethics,
and ontology by showing with great clarity the way relevant philosophical positions are set
out. Peffer also provides a useful list of recent participants in the Anglo-American debate
on Marxism and morality (pp. 9-10).
 The meaning of socialism 91
premisses and conditions than today's, are not only insufficient but even
misleading."12 But Bernstein's tone became noticeably more impas-
sioned when he turned against contemporary British and German
"scientific socialists" whose dogmatic interpretation of Marxist doctrine
conflicted with "empirical reality."13
For the purposes of this study, then, it is not necessary to engage in a
detailed textual exegesis outlining intricate comparisons between the
principles of revisionism and the conflicting attributes of the two different
Marxisms.14 Since Bernstein's critique emerged as a clear protest against
the Marxist orthodoxy reigning in the 1890s, we must instead focus on the
principal theoretical works that gave Marxist theory its definitive expres-
sion in the 1891 Erfurt Program. For better or worse, socialism came to be
understood in terms of Kautsky's popular Das Erfurter Programm - a book
that drew its intellectual inspiration from Engels' Anti-Duhring, Marx's
Capital, and, of course, The Communist Manifesto. Kautsky, Bernstein,
and all other prominent Marxist theorists assumed that the teleological
and scientistic language of the Manifesto formed the core of "orthodox"
Marxism. As the "Baron" untiringly reminded his revisionist opponents,
"true socialism" was a science embodied in the founders' systematic
writings. There, they had explained their discovery of the "natural laws of
capitalist production," which unfolded with "iron necessity" toward the
"inevitable socialist goal."15 The hallmark of modern, scientific socialism
was the disclosure of the objective-teleological, historical process finding
its necessary, subjective expression in the revolutionary consciousness of
the proletariat.
But for the "revisionist" Bernstein, the meaning of socialism was no
longer accurately captured in Kautsky's "orthodox" Marxism. Since its
theoretical vision needed correction, Bernstein set out to reconceptualize
socialism along revisionist lines which involved, first and foremost, the
rejection of Kautsky's determinism and the complete deletion of the
Erfurt Program's theoretical claims.16 While the critique of the party
program represented the first step toward a new understanding of
12
Bernstein, "Drei Antworten auf ein Inquisitorium," in Zur Geschichte und Theorie des
Sozialismus: Teil III: Sozialistische Controversen, 4th ed. (Berlin: Dummler, 1904), p. 14.
13
Bernstein to Kautsky (February 16, 1898), Adler A.
14
Recently, Gary Steenson has offered useful criteria for a broader conception of Marxism:
see After Marx, Before Lenin, pp. 261-267.
15
CI, pp. 10,761-763.
16
Bernstein, "An meine socialistischen Kritiker," pp. 5-7; "Vom Wesen des Socialismus,"
in Zur Geschichte und Theorie des Sozialismus, pp. 39-56; "Ein Vorwort zur Programmrevi-
sion," SM 10 (1904), pp. 19-26; and "Der Revisionismus in der Sozialdemokratie," in
Helmut Hirsch, ed. Ein revisionistisches Sozialismusbild, 2nd ed. (Berlin-Bonn: Dietz,
1976), p. 132. Indeed, Bernstein's own blueprint for the 1921 Gorlitz Program includes
virtually no references to his philosophy of science.
92 Vision
socialism, the full consequences of Bernstein's disagreement with the
"orthodox" Marxists became apparent only with the publication of Rosa
Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution? Distributed in 1899, this brilliant
pamphlet offered an admirably succinct exposition of "scientific social-
ism," packing the theoretical core of Engels' and Kautsky's arguments
into a few precisely formulated pages. Consequently, our brief reconsider-
ation offin-de-siecle"Marxist orthodoxy," which Bernstein fought tooth
and claw for more than two decades, will begin with an exposition of the
crucial features of Engels' comprehensive Weltanschauung, it will then
move on to an analysis of Kautsky's commentary on the Erfurt Program;
and will conclude with a review of Luxemburg's famous essay.
Long-standing arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, Marx and
Engels agreed on all fundamental matters of socialist theory.17 Marx
wrote a favorable forward to his friend's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,
explicitly giving his nod of approval to the use of the term "scientific
socialism" in the context of their social theory.18 Having repeatedly
discussed with Engels the main outline of Anti-Duhring, Marx even
provided his intellectual alter ego with a critical compendium of Duhr-
ing's views on the history of political economy.19 The cooperative
character of Marx and Engels' theoretical development has been amply
documented in their voluminous correspondence and by the testimonies
of contemporary observers. The quality of such evidence should be
sufficient finally to lay to rest groundless notions that Marx did not share
his collaborator's views, particularly his philosophy of science.20
In general terms, Engels' account of "scientific socialism" amounted to
a sophisticated apology for Hegel's method of dialectics with the help of
novel insights drawn from modern natural science. According to the
"General," a closer observation of simple cause-effect relationships
furnished irrefutable proof for nature's evolution according to dialectical
laws, thus belying the mechanical method of "metaphysical" materialists
who considered their objects of investigation "fixed, rigid, given once for

17
For the "dichotomist" argument, see, for example, Lichtheim, Marxism: A Historical and
Critical Study; Shlomo Avineri, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1968); Robert C. Tucker, Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx, 2nd ed.
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1972); Norman Levine, The Tragic Deception: Marx contra
Engels (Oxford: Clio, 1975); Frederick Bender, ed. The Betrayal of Marx (New York:
Harper and Row, 1976); and Terrell Carver, Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationship
(Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1983).
18
Karl Marx, "Foreword to the French Edition," in Engels, Socialism: Utopian and
Scientific, pp. 1-4.
19
MECW25, p. xiii.
20
This view is shared by Helena Sheehan, Marxism and the Philosophy of Science (Atlantic
Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1993), pp. 48-64; and J. D. Hunley, The Life and
Thought of Friedrich Engels: A Reinterpretation (New Haven: Yale UP, 1991).
 The meaning of socialism 93
21
all." At the same time, Marx and Engels realized that Hegel's "funda-
mental laws of dialectical reasoning" needed to be separated from their
idealist content and given a "real basis" in a materialist conception of
history., based on developing contradictions in the economic mode of
production.22 In other words, Engels understood the study of the laws of
dialectics as "the science of the general laws of motion and development
of nature, human society, and thought," thus marrying a Hegelian
philosophical framework to the natural sciences. To a greater degree than
Marx, Engels was quite keen on Darwin's groundbreaking 1859 Origin of
Species, which - although non-predictive, non-determinist, and non-
teleological - served him as the prime example for such a "new materialist
science," linking the dialectical development of class society with evol-
utionary biology.23
Seeking to bridge the gap between rationalism and empiricism, as well
as humanism and naturalism, Engels' Anti-Duhring represented the
ambitious attempt to create an integral world view combining politics,
science, and philosophy as an interdependent social "totality." This
allowed Engels simultaneously to defend the sociohistorical character of
all scientific knowledge and to promulgate "scientific socialism" as the
only possible theoretical expression of the proletarian movement. In fact,
the fusing of natural laws with social development within the framework
of a socialist Weltanschauung even strengthened the legitimacy of a
"dialectical science" by making theory "real" in the concrete, historical
struggles of a proletariat that, in potentia, already bore the final socialist
goal.
Popularizing the insights of Marx's dense Capital, Engels' Anti-Duhring
dedicated an entire section to the exposition of political economy as an
essentially historical science whose modes of production and relations of
material exchange develop in dialectical fashion with the regularity of laws
of nature. Equipped with the dialectical key capable of breaking the secret
code of capitalist social relations, Engels could claim to offer a genuinely
"scientific" critique of classical political economy. In his opinion, the
Marxist method far surpassed previous "eclectic" forms of socialism by
providing the modern proletariat with a powerful analytical tool. "Bour-
geois" notions of "eternal truth," "original sin," and "divine justice"
21
Engels, Anti-Duhring, in MECW 25, p. 22.
22
Ibid., p p . 2 1 , 2 5 .
23
Terrell Carver, Friedrich Engels: His Life and Thought (London: Macmillan, 1989), pp.
238, 245- 246.1 am indebted to Terrell Carver for pointing out to me that Marx was not
rushing to dedicate Capital to Darwin; he merely sent Darwin a copy of the second
German edition of Capital at the request of his son-in-law Edward Aveling. For an
excellent article on this issue, see Terence Ball, "Marx and Darwin: A Reconsideration,"
in Reappraising Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995), pp. 229-249.
94 Vision
could finally be debunked as ideological distortions hiding repressive
social relations.24 By revealing existing contradictions at the economic base
of society - the disjunctive between the dynamic forces of production and
stagnant relations of production - socialist theory assumed in praxis the
status of an objective social movement struggling against oppressive
conditions, independent of the individual's ethical ideals: "Modern
socialism is nothing but a reflex, in thought, of this [class] conflict in fact;
its ideal reflection in the minds, first, of the class directly suffering under it,
the working class."25 Thus, Engels' socialism provided the scientific
explanation of the proletariat's historical role as the social force that was
bound to complete the transition from capitalism to socialism. Indeed,
only scientific socialism harbored the appropriate conceptual means for
the working class to comprehend its historical condition and consciously
transform society with the "final goal" of establishing rational control of
material production.26
Kautsky's 1891 commentary on the Erfurt Program, entitled Das
Erfurter Programm, was hailed by Engels as an "exemplary piece of work"
which elaborated in less philosophical language on the founders' convic-
tion that "scientific socialism" was indeed possible as a cognitive activity
carried on within the framework of a comprehensive world view. Seeking
to simplify Engels' arguments even further, Kautsky provided the German
labor movement with a theory of social totality that emphasized the
alleged connection between Darwinian natural science and Marxist
sociohistorical arguments. Pushing Engels' "nomological" approach to
new extremes, Kautsky viewed human history as a natural process taking
place according to definite laws. Designed to create the propagandistic
effect of an "exact" science revealing the "immanent laws of the capitalist
mode of production," a "theory of collapse" featured prominently in
Kautsky's scheme.
We consider the collapse of our current society inevitable, since we know that the
economic development, with natural necessity [Naturnotwendigkeit], will create
conditions which force the exploited to fight against private property; we also
know that the number and the strength of the exploited is increasing while the
number and strength of the reactionary exploiters decreases;finally,we know that
it [the economic development] will lead to unbearable hardship for the masses,
which will force the people to choose between passive immiseration or the active
overthrow of the existing property relations.27
Over and over again, Kautsky praised the unique ability of "scientific
24
Engels, Anti-Duhring, in MECW 25, p. 255.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid., pp. 254, 270.
27
Kautsky, Das Erfurter Programm, p. 102. See also ibid. pp. 106, 253.
 The meaning of socialism 95
socialists" to identify socialism's "natural and necessary goal" - the
seizure of political power in the state and the transformation of the
capitalist mode of production.28 Neither relying on the "beautiful dream"
of socialist Utopians like Owen, Fourier, and Weitling, nor on the ethical
voluntarism of neo-Kantian moral philosophers, Kautsky characterized
Marx's method as "penetrating deeply into the social tendencies of its
time," ultimately revealing the "coming of a fundamentally different
social order" as the "inevitable consequence of an objectively necessary
process."29
The correspondence of objective sociohistorical conditions and the
subjective moment was to be accomplished in the self-constitution of
social democracy, the political party of the revolutionary proletariat.
Capitalist economic development fostered strong solidaristic bonds
among members of the working class, leading to the formation of a
proletarian "ecdesia miliians" - the concrete political expression of
"maturing" inner contradictions of capitalism.30 Thus, the ultimate
victory of the working class and the realization of its "final goal" were
based upon an objective-teleological, historical process.31
Rosa Luxemburg affirmed Kautsky's nomological interpretation and
further strengthened the notion of the scientific character of Marxist
socialism by identifying three "objectively necessary" consequences of
capitalist development. Firstly, there was the growing disorganization and
"anarchy" of the capitalist economy, a tendency "inevitably leading to its
ruin." Secondly, the progressive socialization of the process of production
created "the germ of the future social order." Thirdly, there was the
increased organization and consciousness of the proletarian class, which
constituted "the active factor in the coming revolution."32 Thus, the
socialist revolution was the inevitable consequence of both "the growing
contradictions of capitalist economy," and "the comprehension by the
working class of the unavoidability of the suppression of these contradic-
tions through a social transformation."33
Rejecting with Engels the "metaphysical viewpoint" of the undialecti-
cal bourgeois scientist, Luxemburg argued that Marx's accurate predic-
tion of the "inevitability of capitalism's collapse" was only possible
because he had looked at the "hieroglyphics of capitalist economy" from
a partisan perspective: "And it is precisely because he took the socialist
viewpoint as a point of departure for his analysis of bourgeois society
28
Ibid., pp. 125-126, 190, 222.
29
Ibid., pp. 130-133, 137, 253.
30
Ibid., pp. 185, 207.
31
Ibid., pp. 219, 230-231.
32
Luxemburg, Reform Or Revolution?, p. 11.
33
Ibid., pp. 31,35.
96 Vision
that he was in the position to give a scientific base to the socialist
movement."34 Hence, socialism was not only possible as a proletarian
science, but it was indeed the sole social theory which corresponded
directly to objective, empirical developments in society.
Like Engels and Kautsky, Luxemburg fully recognized the importance
of sharply separating the "scientific character" of Marx's socialism from
the voluntarism of an "ethical socialism" based upon "the millenarian
dreams of humanity." 35 Relying on the method of historical materialism,
she explained the developmental course of socialist theory from these
"insufficient seven-league boots of the childhood of the proletariat" to
Marx's "correct elaboration of the principles of scientific socialism." 36
Defining the meaning of socialism in exclusively Marxist terms, Luxem-
burg's pamphlet convincingly illustrates the hegemony of orthodox
Marxism infin-de-sieclesocialist theory: " [T]here could be no socialism -
at least in Germany - outside of Marxist socialism, and there could be no
socialist class struggle outside of social democracy. From then on [the
emergence of Marx's theory], socialism and Marxism, the proletarian
struggle for emancipation, and social democracy were identical." 37
Having asserted the complete identity of Marxism and socialism,
Luxemburg was in a position to point to the philosophical core of
Bernstein's "revisionist misreading of Marx" in his famous statement,
"The final goal, whatever it may be, is nothing to me, the movement is
everything." By denying the central significance of the "final goal" in
socialist theory, Bernstein had abandoned Marxist teleology - the theor-
etical basis of "scientific socialism, because, for a proletarian party
standing on the firm grounds of the daily struggle," there existed "no
more practical question than that of the final goal." 38 Kautsky concurred
wholeheartedly: "What could be more depressing than such gross
misinterpretations [of Marx] from a man who himself defended historical
materialism for more than two decades?" 39 Consequently, both Kautsky
and Luxemburg excoriated Bernstein for his "flawed" philosophy of
science, which had abandoned Hegelian dialectics in favor of Kant's
philosophical dualism: "We have here, in brief, the explanation of the
socialist program by means of'pure reason.' We have here, to use simpler
language, an idealist explanation of socialism. The objective necessity of
34
Ibid., p. 40.
35
Ibid., p. 35.
36
Ibid., p. 60.
37
Ibid.
38
Luxemburg cited in Protokoll iXber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratis-
chen Partei Deutschlands, abgehalten zu Stuttgart vom 3-8. Oktober 1898 (Berlin, 1898), p.
99.
39
Kautsky, Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm, p. 47.
 The meaning of socialism 97
socialism, the explanation of socialism as the result of the material
development of society, falls to the ground." 40
Luxemburg's and Kautsky's assessment was shared by the Russian
"Father of Marxism,"George Plekhanov, who in a brief, but intense
philosophical dispute with Bernstein and Konrad Schmidt in Neue Zeit>
had targeted their underlying neo-Kantian philosophy: "The bourgeoisie
hopes to find in Kant's philosophy the 'opium' by which it seeks to lull the
recalcitrant proletariat to sleep. Neo-Kantianism has become rather
fashionable among members of the ruling class because it furnishes the
mental weapon with which to fight for their existence." 41 Unlike most of
his German comrades, Plekhanov's background in Hegelian philosophy
was impeccable; he skillfully fought against what he considered the
repulsive "revisionist infiltration" of Humean and Kantian skepticism
into the socialist movement:
Surely this is a complete break with revolutionary tactics and communism . . . I
almost took sickfromthese [Bernstein's] articles; what is most vexing of all is that
Bernstein is partly right: for instance, it is impossible to count upon the realization
of the socialist ideal in the near future. But truth may be employed for different
ends; Bernstein uses it the sooner to filch the Philistine nightcap. Or is the
Philistine to be the Normalmensch of the future? With this question, a shudder runs
through me and I want to say with Gogol: How tedious is this world, sirs!42
In a letter to Kautsky, Plekhanov went even further: "If Bernstein is right
in his critical endeavors, one may ask what remains of the philosophical
and socialist ideas of our teachers? . . . And in truth, one would have to
reply: not very much!" 43
Indeed, Plekhanov's and Luxemburg's critique struck at the heart of
the matter. Scrambling to bridge the tension between skeptical empiri-
cism and Kantian ethical idealism, Bernstein had fundamentally
changed the meaning of socialism. True, by turning against the
nomological rhetoric of his comrades, he made room for human volition,
morality, and historical contingency. At the same time, however, his
ethical socialism shattered the unity and explanatory power of the
Marxist-Hegelian system. What began as a spark of Kantian doubt
directed against the "dogmatism" of Marxist orthodoxy ended in total
theoretical "subversion."
40
Luxemburg, Reform Or Revolution?, p. 13.
41
George Plekhanov, "Konrad Schmidt gegen Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels," in NZ
16.1 (1898/99), p. 145. See also "Bernstein und der Materialismus," in NZ 16.2
(1897/98), pp. 546-555, and "Materialismus oder Kantianismus," in NZ 17.1
(1898/99), pp. 589-596, 626-632.
42
P l e k h a n o v cited i n S a m u e l H . B a r o n , Plekhanov: The Father of Russian Marxism
(Stanford: Stanford UP, 1963), pp. 172-173.
43
Plekhanov cited in ibid., p. 176.
98 Vision
Socialism and science
Bernstein never fully acknowledged the enormous ramifications of his
revisionist initiative. Though he openly argued for the importance of
"modernizing Marxism" - the critical revision of Marxist theory from a
fin-de-siecle perpective - he also claimed to have remained "within the
bounds of the founders' system." But was it possible simply to "correct"
Kautsky's and Bebel's orthodoxy by letting the "evolutionary Marx"
carry the point against the "dogmatic Marx?"44 What exactly did
Bernstein mean when he spoke of his efforts "to separate the vital parts of
[Marx's] theory from its outdated accessories"?45 Struggling tofinda firm
criterion that would help him identify these "vital parts/' Bernstein began
to vacillate. At times., he asserted that he was "merely" engaged in a
project of "cutting a few branches from an otherwise healthy [Marxist]
tree."46 On other occasions, he admitted to be involved in generating
"self-criticism of... not just a few superficialities but of very substantial
components of Marxism's theoretical structure."47 Once Bernstein had
assumed the posture of the Cartesian rationalist who attacks all dogmatic
claims, his doubts led to more doubts. And, most importantly, why
exactly was the "new" theoretical foundation for an "evolutionary
socialism" more in step with modern social conditions?
Bernstein embarked on his critical enterprise by first exploring the
"new" meaning of "socialism" and "science" itself. All goals and
activities of a "scientifically based" socialist movement, he claimed, could
only be determined in accordance with "knowledge capable of objective
proof, that is, knowledge which refers to, and conforms with, nothing but
empirical experience and logic."48 Therefore, he insisted on the distinc-
tion between "pure" and "applied" scientific theories. Whereas pure
theory was "constant" in its universally valid, "cognitive principles which
are derived from the sum total of the relevant data," applied science was
based on the application of these universalist principles to particular
phenomena or cases, thus yielding provisional, or "variable" knowl-
edge.49 This analytic distinction spilled over into Bernstein's separation of
natural and social sciences: the former sought to uncover purely causal
relationships between natural objects, and the latter dealt in addition with
"products of artifice, based on plan, intention, and acts of will."50
44
Eduard Bernstein, "Bildung, Wissenschaft und Partei" in SM 11 (1907), p. 711; "Der
Sozialismus als sozialwissenschaftliche Entwicklungslehre," in Der Sozialismus Einst und
Jetzt (Berlin: Dietz, 1923), pp. 5-10; and Was ist der Marxismus: Antwort aufeine Hetze
(Berlin: Vorwarts, 1924), pp. 1-8.
45
Bernstein, "Idealismus, Kampftheorie, und Wissenschaft," in SM 5 (1901), p. 606.
46
Bernstein, "Dialektik und Entwicklung," p. 333.
47
PS, pp. 11,46.
48
Ibid., p . 9 .
49
Ibid.
 The meaning of socialism 99
Situated in the complex realm of human intersubjectivity, social science
yielded less precise results in its search for universal patterns. Conse-
quently, Bernstein defended the primacy of natural science and the
validity of its categories for social scientific analysis, for in their attempt to
formulate general social theories, social scientists were dependent on
empirically verifiable "facts." They could not rely on purely deductive
operations from first principles in the manner of mathematics or ge-
ometry, but were forced to employ a "positivist-inductive method"
characterized by falsifiability and contingency. 51 Based on these prelimi-
nary distinctions, Bernstein proceeded to provide a "systematic extrac-
tion of the pure science of Marxist socialism from its applied part." 52 This
procedure would allow him to specify which parts of Marx's system could
be revised or removed without any damage to its "pure" theoretical
foundation:
Everything that is unconditional in the Marxist characterization of bourgeois
society and its course of development, that is, everything whose validity is free
from national and local peculiarities, would accordingly belong to the domain of
pure science. But everything which refers to facts and hypotheses which are
conditional on a particular time or place, that is, particular forms of development,
would belong to applied science.53
The problem with this formulation was two-fold: firstly, Bernstein
ultimately criticized not only the "applied parts" of Marxist theory, but
attacked its "pure" parts (e.g., historical materialism and the theory of
surplus value) as well, thus defeating the very purpose of this troubling
distinction. Secondly, his analytic investigations betrayed the "uncritical"
(in a Marxist sense) character of his enterprise - his closeness to the
undialectical, "bourgeois" epistemology of the British empiricists. Ortho-
dox Marxists immediately claimed that Bernstein had foresaken Marx's
emphasis on dynamism and sociohistorical totality - a unifying theory of
modern society and its development - in favor of what Marx had once
derided as Comte's "shit-positivism." Although he was aware of such
criticism, Bernstein nonetheless defended his project as "critical," under-
stood as providing the necessary bulwark against the rigid dogmatism of
Marxist orthodoxy. 54 By implication, however, this meant that his
revisionist position no longer corresponded to the Marxist-Hegelian
philosophical universe - a politically dangerous conclusion for anybody
belonging to a "Marxist" party.

50
Eduard Bernstein, "Naturprinzipien und Wirtschaftsfragen," in SM 4 (1900), p. 320.
51
Bernstein, "Idealismus, Kampftheorie, und Wissenschaft," p. 602; Bernstein to Kautsky
(December 23, 1897) Kautsky Archive, IISH, DV427.
52
PS, p. 10.
53
Ibid., p . 1 1 .
54
Ibid.
100 Vision
Pointing out that the "predictions" of the Erfurt Program were clearly
built on the particularity of space and time - backed up by "variable"
hypotheses and facts - Bernstein found the program's theoretical asser-
tions to be "unscientific" in their claim to present "inevitable" laws of
social development. Ossified into party dogma, Kautsky's "pseudo-
scientific deductions" damaged what Bernstein considered the "critical"
heritage of the socialist (and liberal!) enterprise - its persistent subversion
of dogma of any kind. Any socialism based on "science" had to remain
open to new theoretical propositions and empirical developments derived
from actual political and social practice.55 For Bernstein, Kautsky's
dogmatism was but the latest manifestation of a trend that could be traced
back to the influence Hegel's speculative philosophy had exerted on the
young Marx.
Indeed, Bernstein charged Marx and Engels with having built their
social theory on Hegel's fatal "metaphysical blunder" of "subordinating]
any claim to scientific status to a preconceived tendency."56 By implica-
tion, Bernstein accused the founders of remaining the prisoners of a
metaphysical doctrine, which, in deductive fashion, constructed social
developments from a priori formulas: "[Marxist theory] aims at being a
scientific investigation and also proving a thesis laid down long before its
conception, that is based on a formula in which the result to which the
exposition ought to lead is laid down beforehand."57 Spinning out the
"logical somersaults of Hegelianism," Marx and Engels had overlooked
the "concrete facts" of specific economic developments which would
have provided the necessary empirical correction to "the self-deceptions
they entertained about the actual course of [current] events."58 Thereby,
Bernstein not only questioned the scientific integrity of Marxism, but he
also parted with Engels' notion of a social "totality," expressed in the
compatibility of a socialist Weltanschauung and "proletarian" (i.e., "dia-
lectical") scientific research. In a letter to the Italian socialist Antonio
Labriola, Bernstein openly admitted that he no longer considered
Marxism such an all-encompassing "system," but a particular "way of
seeing things" which, first and foremost, needed to "maintain its
character as a free, open science."59
Undoubtedly, Engels would have attacked his pupil's philosophy of
science as a sophisticated brand of "bourgeois metaphysics," overly
indulgent and undialectically reifying rigid distinctions between science
55
Bernstein, "Ein Vorwort zur Programmrevision," in SM 8 (1904), pp. 9-11.
56
PS, pp. 46, 35.
57
Ibid., p . 1 9 8 .
58
Ibid., pp. 46, 36.
59
Bernstein, "Idealismus, Kampftheorie, und Wissenschaft," p. 606.
 The meaning of socialism 101
and world view. Ironically, Bernstein, too, polemicized against the
"pitfalls of metaphysics;" but unlike his mentor, he employed the term in
a Kantian sense, referring to the "speculative dogmatism" of a metaphys-
ics of totality. Indeed, Bernstein's critique of "socialist reason" meticu-
lously separated knowledge from speculation, science from world view,
fact from value, and necessity from freedom. Yet, affirming the validity of
an empiricist epistemology for his own intellectual enterprise, Bernstein
robbed socialism of its presumed immanence, underscoring that its
declared "final goal cannot be constructed a priori in abstract fashion,"
but had to be formed "from within the practical struggles of the
movement itself."60

Teleology and science

Refusing to view human development as a reified and teleological process,
Bernstein exchanged Marx's "knowledge" of immanently unfolding,
"objective" tendencies for the kind of historical contingency that under-
lies Kant's "hope in progress." In fact, Bernstein nullified what orthodox
Marxists considered the greatest achievement of their philosophy: the
overcoming of abstract ideals in its recognition of the dialectical unity of
the real movement and socialism's immanent telos: the "seizure of political
power by the working class and the expropriation of the capitalists."61
Bernstein's return to Kant's skepticist epistemology was exemplified in his
famous confession that he had "extraordinarily little feeling for, or interest
in, what is usually termed the 'final goal of socialism.'"62 Although the
setting of socialist objectives was acceptable, and even necessary, science
could neither specify nor dictate "when and how socialists should expect to
reach this goal."63
Rather than treating the "final goal" as a closed empirical category that
could be derived dialectically from a "scientific" analysis of the historical
process, Bernstein acknowledged the heuristic value of postulating a
transcendental socialist goal - a necessarily "agnostic" category which had
to be complemented by open-ended scientific inquiries conducted in an
"objective," impartial manner.64 In other words, Bernstein exchanged the
dialectical-scientific status of the "final goal" with that of a socialist "ideal"
60
Eduard Bernstein, "Der Revisionismus in der Sozialdemokratie," in Hirsch, Ein
revisionistisches Sozialismusbild, p. 106.
61
Victor Adler, "The Party Conference at Stuttgart," in MS, p. 314.
62
Bernstein, "The Theory of Collapse and Colonial Policy," in ibid., p. 168.
63
Bernstein, "Vom Wesen des Socialismus," in Zur Theorie und Geschichte des Sozialismus,
p. 44.
64
Eduard Bernstein, "Der Kernpunkt des Streites," in SM 5 (1901), p. 780. Eduard
Bernstein, "The Realistic and the Ideological Moments in Socialism," in MS, p. 234.
102 Vision
that was supposed to guide the political practice of the labor movement.65
But if socialists could not "know" such a "final goal," what, if any, was the
connection between "science" and "socialism"? Moreover, if Bernstein
conceded that socialist political practice was, in fact, dependent on
scientific knowledge, what was the exact nature of that relationship?66
In order for Marxist orthodoxy to defend its "scientific" status, it had to
prove the imputed "inevitability" of capitalism's collapse and the "natural
necessity" of its final goal independent of human volition, since the
characteristic hallmarks dividing "objective" and "subjective" forces
were to be found in "conscious, willed, and intentional human activity."67
A natural science like astronomy would be able to predict, say, "a partial
solar eclipse on April 8, 1902, without having to rely upon the will of the
predicting astronomer or of any observer."68 Incapable of "knowing what
is necessary," Bernstein's "critical" (Kantian) socialism was indeed
inconceivable as "pure" cognitive science. In fact, defined as a "move-
ment toward a cooperative social order of the future, free of exploitation,
suppression and material need," evolutionary socialism was clearly
dependent on an "element of will or interest that transcended positive
experience."69
For Bernstein, no social system or "ism" calling on subjective forces to
transform society could be built exclusively upon scientific foundations.70
Expressing both the material and the ideal (moral) interests of the working
class in bringing about what ought to be, socialism carried within it an
unavoidable tension between "science as the vehicle of cognition and
political, economic, and speculative interest."71 Hence, he asserted that
"what we call Marxism is partly an analysis of a given society and partly a
theory of the socialist struggle."72 In other words, Bernstein admonished
his comrades that, when using the term "scientific socialism," they had to
"bear in mind that we can only refer to the theoretical foundations of
65
Eduard Bernstein, "Noch etwas zu Endziel und Bewegung: Ein Brief an Otto Lang," in
SM3 (1899), p. 504.
66
See, for example, Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 63.
See also, "Idealismus, Kampftheorie, und Wissenschaft," in SM 5 (1901), pp. 597-608;
"Der Kernpunkt des Streites," pp. 777-785; "Bildung, Wissenschaft und Partei," in SM
11 (1907), pp. 706-712; and "Wissenschaft, Werturteile und Partei," in SM 16 (1912),
pp. 1,407-1,415.
67
Bernstein, "Drei Antworten auf ein Inquisitorium," in Zur Theorie und Geschichte des
Sozialismus, vol. Ill, p. 10; "An meine sozialistischen Kritiker," p. 7.
68
Bernstein, "Idealismus, Kampftheorie, und Wissenschaft," p. 603; "Der Kernpunkt des
Streites," pp. 780-781.
69
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," pp. 65-67.
70
Ibid., p . 7 7 .
71
Ibid., p . 6 6 .
72
Bernstein, "Classenkampf-Dogma und Classenkampf-Wirklichkeit," in Zur Theorie und
Geschichte des Sozialismus, vol. Ill, p. 133.
 The meaning of socialism 103
73
socialist striving and socialist demands." A "socialist" organization of
collective social action always aimed at "something beyond that of which
we have positive experience."74 Therefore, in its dependence on a
"transcendental, moral ideal/' socialism was never free of "speculative
idealism."75
In Bernstein's model, socialism could no longer be explained solely as
an objective formation characterized by the dialectical unfolding of
economic "Being" toward its inherent telos: "[T]he proof of'the imma-
nent necessity of socialism' cannot be supplied without resorting to
transcendental deductions, making demands for 'scientific socialism'.. .
not only unfounded but also objectionable."76 Once again seeking to
"legitimate" his attack on Hegelian teleology, Bernstein resorted to a
casual remark made by Engels in an interview for the Paris newspaper Le
Figaro: "We [Marxist socialists] don't have afinalgoal. We are evolution-
ists and we don't intend to dictate ultimate laws to humanity. Prejudiced
opinions regarding the detailed organization of the future society? You
won't find a trace of that among us." 77 But unlike his mentor, Bernstein
identified such an "evolutionary socialism" with a transcendental ideal
guiding the movement and reflected in a particular social principle whose
progressive realization could only approach this ideal of a cooperative
social order: "The final goal is only possible as a principle. Only as a
principle does the goal become real, pervading the socialist movement at
any given moment."78
Inspired by F. A. Lange's neo-Kantian use of "regulative ideas," like
the "principle of cooperation,"79 Bernstein consciously rejected the
teleological Marxism underlying Bebel's revolutionary attentisme which
promoted the passive attitude of merely awaiting the collapse of a doomed
system and the inevitable realization of an immanent goal. Conversely,
understood as a theory of reform stimulating political action, Bernstein's
evolutionary socialism aimed at restoring the lost unity between theory
and practice. Defined as a principle of cooperation, the socialist goal could
not be conjured up a priori, but was critically informed by the political
struggle of the movement. However, as his neo-Kantian friends were
quick to point out, here Bernstein compromised the transcendental
73
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 65.
74
Ibid. Here, Bernstein is obviously indebted to Lange's (1875) proposition that, "ideas . . .
don't claim higher truths, but their opposite: the full and complete renunciation of any
theoretical validity in the realm of an externally-directed cognition" (p. 54).
75
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 67.
76
Ibid., p . 8 7 .
77
Friedrich Engels, "Interview in Le Figaro" (May 8, 1893), in MEW 22, p. 542.
78
Bernstein, "A Statement," in MS, p. 193. See also Eduard Bernstein, "Noch etwas
Endziel und Bewegung" in SM 4 (1900), p. 505.
79
F. A. Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. II (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1974), p. 998.
104 Vision
character of the ideal by allowing "external" factors to influence its
content. On the other hand, this "philosophical weakness" (in Kantian
terms) allowed for Bernstein's emphasis on political praxis - the privileg-
ing of the daily detail work (Kleinarbeit) of the movement over metaphysical
goals.80
Despite its clear connection to enlightenment rationalism, Bernstein's
epistemology never successfully bridged the severe tensions between the
skepticist and radical-idealist strains in Kant's thought. A "critical"
destroyer of Marxist dogma armed with scores of statistics, Bernstein
assaulted the very "metaphysical" and teleological postulates that might
serve as the standards for crucial normative and ethical judgments.81 At
the same time, however, he realized the importance of idealist categories
in providing an external referent that would guide the political agent in
making both ethical and "practical" choices. But, as pointed out above,
Bernstein's ad hoc transcendental "standpoint of the socialist ideal"
lacked the epistemological status of Kant's a priori categories of judgment,
thus undermining the philosophical imperative for a cooperative commu-
nity of co-legislators - Kant's celebrated notion of a "kingdom of ends."82
Politically, Bernstein's empirical emphasis and the ensuing privileging
of the "movement" made it extremely difficult for him to adjudicate
among various claims. After all, without a priori transcendental standards
or ultimate goals, conflicting "ethical" ideals might arise from the daily
struggles of the movement, and a prioritizing of these competing impera-
tives might occur on the basis of purely strategic considerations. As a result,
political decision-making could become defined by mere political
exigency, protecting party technocrats speaking the language of
"Bernsteinian practical ethics" from ethical-transcendental criticism.83
Bernstein's good intentions notwithstanding, his epistemological stance
indeed resulted in the SPD PraktikeSs excuse to open the door to an
instrumentalism whose "principles" conflicted with Kantian moral im-
peratives. As a result, "practical reason" lost its action-guiding function,
and instrumentalist objectives such as immediate electoral success and the
expansion of the party bureaucracy became exempt from ethical criticism.
Part 3 of this study will address this problem in more detail.
Philosophically, Bernstein's epistemological dualism seemed to pre-
80
Bernstein, "Der Revisionismus in der Sozialdemokratie," in Hirsch, Ein revisionistisches
Sozialismusbild, p. 106; "Noch etwas zu Endziel und Bewegung," p. 503; "Nach zwei
Fronten," in NZ 17.2 (1898/99), p. 851.
81
For crucial distinctions between various forms of "ethical relativism" in Marxist thought,
see Peffer, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice, pp. 8-9, 80-114, 169-195.
82
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, translated by H. J. Paton (New
York: Harper and Row, 1964), pp. 100-101.
83
See Bronner, Socialism Unbound, pp. 56-63.
 The meaning of socialism 105
vent the possibility of any contact between science and socialism, thereby
reducing the status of the latter once again to that of a mere ethical vision.
The problem was obvious: how, after Marx's groundbreaking critique of
classical political economy, could Bernstein allow himself to "regress" to
the Utopian thinking of a Charles Fourier or a Robert Owen? In short, how
could he maintain his philosophical dualism and still allow for a fruitful
interaction between social science and socialism?84
First and foremost, Bernstein had to explain the relationship between
cognition and interest in such a way that permitted at least some overlap
between these two formerly autonomous spheres. Ironically, the anti-
Hegelian Bernstein ended up suggesting a dialectical relationship be-
tween cognition and interest, and, by extension, between socialism and
science, that avoided "unprincipled, raw-empirical experimentation on
one hand, and sectarian indoctrination on the other."85 Herein lies the
central problem of his life-long theoretical quest for a socialist "middle
way": how can German social democracy formulate a "principled
reformism" that would be reflected in democratically constituted forms of
political and economic self-government? To put the matter in Rous-
seauian terms, Bernstein was engaged in the philosophical attempt to
"bring together what right permits with what interest prescribes so that
justice and utility are in no way divided."86
Bernstein's arguments were based on the following consideration: if the
realization of the "socialist goal" was dependent on active subjects
capable of both knowing and expressing economic and ideal interests,
then the socialist project - understood in Marxian terms as the transform-
ation of capitalist society into a society characterized by a collectivist
economy - required both the "is" of scientific information, and the
"ought" of the moral will. For Bernstein, the "lack of absolute certainty"
inherent in any conceivable social theory did not preclude the necessary
task of outlining a program that attempted to sketch the "probable future
developments in society" - as long as it was generally understood that
such predictions were "always to a certain degree Utopian."87 While the
socialist movement could not subjugate science, its representatives surely
appreciated the value of scientific knowledge. The point, then, was to
"utilize science in choosing appropriate means and methods," and to
"reassess particular [socialist] strategies according to scientific find-
ings."88
84
Bernstein, "Der Kernpunkt des Streits," p. 784.
85
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus mdglich?," p. 89.
86
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, translated and introduced by Maurice
Cranston (New York: Viking-Penguin, 1968), p. 49.
87
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 67.
88
Ibid., p. 73; "Der Kernpunkt des Streites," p. 785.
106 Vision
Predictably, Kautsky balked at Bernstein's philosophy of science.
Accusing him of setting up a strawman - "the primitive scientific
standpoint of the Chinese" - Kautsky claimed that Marxism's scientific
self-understanding had always included an acknowledgment of the
hypothetical status of its predictions. But like any other science, socialist
theory was perfectly justified in deducing "unknown" developments from
existing phenomena without losing its scientific character.89 So far, so
good. A few pages further, however, Kautsky ended up contradicting his
previous arguments by referring to historical materialism as the "science"
underlying the claims of the Erfurt Program, which "proved" that "the
victorious proletariat, by natural necessity, must strive to replace capitalist
production with a new mode of production."90
Obviously, Bernstein's understanding of "scientific" socialism differed
dramatically from Kautsky's in its recognition of epistemological limits.
Bernstein's "science" was designed to serve the labor movement by
providing reliable empirical information about the actual development of
capitalist society. Putting himself squarely within the "positivist school of
philosophy and sociology," he insisted that without such scientific
guidance, all political action would remain empty, just as purely scientific
assertions without subjective value judgments were bound to remain
blind.91 This implied that the party was responsible for providing both a
climate of scientific openness and the ideological coherence of a partisan
organization.
Thus, Bernstein was realistic enough to value "strong party discipline"
as "an indispensable element of political movements."92 Expressing the
ethical will of the labor movement, the party's political principles and
resolutions deserved the unreserved loyalty of the entire membership.93
As soon as the labor movement entered the political arena as a partisan,
89
Karl Kautsky, "Problematischer gegen wissenschaftlichen Sozialismus," in NZ 19.2
(1900/01), pp. 355-364.
90
Ibid., pp. 359-360. Kautsky (1906) repeated these claims in his well-known study, Ethik
und materialistische Geschichtsauffassung, translated by John B. Asken as Ethics and the
Materialist Conception of History (Chicago: Kerr, 1907). He insisted that "scientific
socialism" was to be understood as the "scientific inquiry into the laws of development
and motion of the social organism for the purpose of gaining knowledge of the necessary
tendencies and goals of the proletarian class struggle" (p. 141).
91
ES, p. 40; "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," pp. 65-66. See also,
Thomas Meyer, "Wissenschaft und Sozialismus bei Marx, in der Konzeption Eduard
Bernsteins und in der Gegenwart," in Heimann and Meyer, Bernstein und der demok-
ratische Sozialismus, p . 2 6 2 .
92
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 74; "Parteidisziplin und
Uberzeugungstreue," in SM 5 (1901), p. 846; "Ein Vorwortzur Programmrevision,"pp.
20-25; "Parteidisziplin," in SM 14 (1910), p. 1,216.
93
For Bernstein's list of "legitimate" party demands, see Bernstein, "Vom Wesen des
Sozialismus," in Zur Theorie und Geschichte des Socialismus, vol. II, p. 45.
 The meaning of socialism 107
socialism became a matter of ethical conviction and had to give up all
pretense at being scientific: "This is at the core of its [the movement's]
purpose, since its primary [political] task does not lie in the realization of
scientific postulates."94 At the same time, however, social democracy still
had an obligation to guarantee its members' right to access and utilize the
scientific method as the empirical basis for strategic action.95
In Bernstein's opinion, the crucial imperative of maintaining scientific
openness was clearly violated by the "dogmatism" of the Erfurt Program,
which demanded for its Marxist doctrine "the same infallibility that the
Catholic Church has bestowed upon the Pope."96 Thus, orthodox
Marxists actually hindered the crucial process of open scientific inquiry,
or, at the least, rejected important empirical findings of "bourgeois"
scientists on "metaphysical" grounds. As a result, Bernstein openly
denounced the term "scientific socialism" as an "oxymoron," and offered
instead "critical socialism," a phrase coined by the Italian socialist,
Antonio Labriola.97 According to Bernstein, "scientific socialism" could
be properly employed only "when used in a critical sense as a postulate or
a program . .. Thus, it [socialism] merely utilizes the scientific method to
give power and direction to its own will."98 Indeed, socialist theory could
be "scientific" only "insofar as its propositions are acceptable to any
objective, disinterested non-socialist."99
Bernstein took it to be his intellectual duty to restore socialism to its
proper meaning by following Kant's critical method and drawing the
proper lines of demarcation between socialism as a sociopolitical doctrine
dealing with an uncertain future and sociology as "applied social
science."100 Stressing his resolve to defend his views even against "the vast
army of [Marxist] orthodoxy," he repeatedly warned that, "Confusion
about this dividing line can . . . lead to errors, omissions, and faulty
deductions in public policy issues .. . and may provoke theoretically rigid
attempts to make socialism dependent on 'proofs' of its immanent
necessity. Such effort can never coincide with the scientific method."101
At the 1912 Second German Sociology Conference in Berlin, Bernstein
passionately defended Max Weber's neo-Kantian arguments in favor of a
"value-free social science" against the criticism of the party press.102
94
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 73.
95
Bernstein, "Bildung, Wissenschaft und Partei," p. 712.
96
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 74.
97 98
Ibid., pp. 75-79. Ibid., p. 79.
99
Bernstein, "Der Kernpunkt des Streites," p. 782.
100
Ibid., p. 784.
101
Bernstein, "Idealismus, Kampftheorie, und Wissenschaft," p. 608.
102
Bernstein, "Wissenschaft, Werturteil und Partei," pp. 1,409-1,411. Max Weber's
seminal article," 'Objectivity' in Social Science and Social Policy," which proceeds along
Bernstein's arguments, appeared only three years after his crucial essays on this topic.
108 Vision
Rejecting the standard interpretation of Marxist socialism as a unified,
consistent system, he agreed with Weber's "bourgeois-liberal" position
demanding that all sociopolitical phenomena - as far as they were subjects
of scientific inquiry - should be treated in a causal, value-free manner,
detached from the "dogmatism" of partisan concerns. 103
The detachment of science from transcendental value judgments or tendencies is
not simply a formal or methodological matter, but a question of eminently
practical significance. Here lies the strongest argument in favor of scientific
freedom . . . Scientific research is not free if it becomes subject to certain
considerations that do not arise from within its own logic. A political party
interested in building its great social goals in accordance with scientific knowledge
of society's developing forces and tendencies must concede to its social scientists
the absolute right of free inquiry. Only such freedom enhances the chances of
achieving correct results. Ultimately, then, the securing of scientific freedom is not
merely a question of toleration, but a highly practical matter for a party that is
interested in promoting scientific knowledge of economic tendencies.104
Ultimately, Bernstein's theoretical concerns once again culminated in
the question of practice', he viewed Kautsky's and Bebel's stubborn
attachment to "speculative metaphysics" not only as intellectually un-
sound, but as a threat to the future political viability of the labor
movement. If, in the name of a "proletarian vantage point," the party
discouraged its members from initiating "value-free inquiries into em-
pirically verifiable social correlations," 105 then socialist theory would be
reduced to a purely defensive dogma. In order to preserve its practical
relevance, social democracy had to return to a critical-empiricist method
of social research. In fact, by keeping a watchful eye on new empirical
developments, the labor movement might actually end up rectifying its
deceptive claims regarding the relationship between political theory and
strategic action, thus keeping alive the crucial task of permanently
revising socialist theory.

Ethics and historical materialism

The new meaning of socialism conveyed in Bernstein's revisionist writings
reversed Engels' triumphant claim that socialism had been transformed
from a "mere ideal" into a historical necessity. Since socialism could
never be purely "scientific," there was only "one specific 'socialist'
element in socialist theory: its all-pervasive ethics and its conception of

103
Bernstein, "Wissenschaft, Werturteil und Partei," p. 1,419.
104
Ibid., pp. 1,411, 1,415.
105
Ibid., p. 1,411; "Bildung, Wissenschaft und Partei," p. 707; and "Idealismus, Kam-
pftheorie und Wissenschaft," p. 606.
 The meaning of socialism 109
106
justice." Thus, by elevating morality and law/right (Recht) to more than
mere historical categories reflecting primary processes at their economic
base, Bernstein was implicitly attacking what R. G. Peffer calls "moral
historicism" - the view that "whatever social structures have evolved or
whatever social structures will evolve are, ipso facto, morally justified."107
In fact, Bernstein's philosophy of science blended seamlessly into his
critique of Marx's economic determinism: "No one will deny that the
most important part in the foundation of Marxism, the basic law that, so
to speak, penetrates the whole system is . . . the materialist conception of
history. In principle, Marxism stands or falls with this theory; and insofar
as it suffers modification, the relationship of the other parts to each other
will be affected."108
At the height of the revisionist controversy, Bernstein left no doubt that
he considered Marx's method faulty and in need of repair: "The formula
of historical materialism, as passed down by Marx and Engels, is not really
up to task and needs supplementation."109 In particular, he objected to its
"obvious lack of subtlety," which was responsible for the "one-sided
emphasis on economic elements" that had misled the founders into
"making a variety of social prognoses which, in their old form, are simply
out of touch with our time."110 Here, Bernstein's critique approaches that
of Karl Popper, who has pointed out that, "it is clear enough that the
theory [of historical materialism] depends largely on the possibility of
correct historical prophecy."111
But as was the case in his philosophy of science, Bernstein denied that
his reinterpretation of historical materialism amounted to a wholesale
refutation of Marxism. Arguing that his theoretical initiative was consist-
ent with a "consequential development of Marx's scientific work,"112 he
once again refused to draw the full consequences of his revisionist
critique. For example, he never owned up to the fact that his comprehen-
sive proposals aimed at the "modernization of Marxist socialism" were
bound to lead to an outright abandonment of crucial elements in Marxist
106
Bernstein, "Der Kernpunkt des Streites," p. 782.
107
Peffer, Marxismy Morality, and Social Justice, p. 212.
108
PS, p. 12.
109
Eduard Bernstein, "Der Marx-Cult und das Recht der Revision," in SM 9 (1903), p.
258.
110
Ibid.
111
Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. II (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1971),
p. 205. Several authors have elaborated on the close relationship between Bernstein's
philosophy of science and Karl Popper's "Critical Rationalism." See, for example,
Frithjof Spreer, "Bernstein, Max Weber und das Verhaltnis von Wissenschaft und
Politik in der Gegenwartsdiskussion," in Heiman and Meyer, Bernstein und der
Demokratische Sozialismus, pp. 274-290; and Robert Steigerwald, Biirgerliche Philosophie
und Revisionismus im imperialistischen Deutschland (Berlin: Akademie, 1980).
112
Bernstein, "An meine sozialistischen Kritiker," p. 4.
110 Vision
theory. There are some obvious reasons for why he hesitated to acknowl-
edge his decisive break with Marxism. For one, he had convinced himself
of the legitimacy of his selective, "evolutionary" reading of Marxist
socialism - a perspective that corresponded more closely to the changing
conditions of modernity. Secondly, having dedicated his life entirely to the
political cause of the labor movement, he realized that afinalbreak with its
dominant ideology would leave him without a viable political base.
Finally, there was also the frequently neglected personal factor: his strong
feelings of "filial piety" toward Marx and Engels, which made it extremely
difficult for him to push his arguments to their logical conclusion.113
Repeatedly asserting that he was simply working out a revision of Marxist
theory already begun years ago by Friedrich Engels, Bernstein produced
what he considered to be "convincing evidence" to support his case.
Had not Engels redefined his understanding of "revolution" by
insisting that the "so-called socialist society" was not afixedconcept, but
a constantly changing and evolving social phenomenon, making "us
[socialists] all evolutionists"?114 Moreover, in his harsh condemnation of
the SPD's "Youngsters" faction, had Engels not explicitly stated that
dogmatic applications of the 1848 Communist Manifesto principles to any
historical context were rooted in an overly simplistic understanding of
Marx's method?115 Likewise, didn't the "General" temper the revol-
utionary fervor of the French Labor Party by warning them against
"moving too close to the antiquated principles of Blanquism"?116 Indeed
sounding thoroughly "revisionist," Engels had contested a rigid concep-
tion of Marxism: " [T]he whole Marxist conception is not a doctrine, but a
method. There are no instant dogmas, only points of reference for further
investigation and the method for this investigation."117
Moreover, Bernstein didn't overlook the fact that Engels was ultimately
forced to admit that overly "deterministic" interpretations of Marx's
method offered by the "Youngsters" were actually made possible by the
existing unstable compromise in Marxist theory between the alleged
primacy of causal determination and the efficacy of human volition. Given
the explosive growth of the German labor movement in the years after
Marx's death, Engels realized the importance of working out a more
precise exposition of the historical-materialist method. At the very core of
113
Bernstein to Kautsky (November 9, 1898), Adler A. Here, Bernstein openly admitted
that his "filial piety" toward Marx and Engels often prevented him from giving free rein
to his criticism. Hence, his complaint: "How is such an [outspoken] critique possible
without injury to the elders?"
114
Engels, "Interview with Le Figaro" (May 8, 1893), MEW22, p. 542.
115
Engels to Schmidt (August 5, 1890), MEW 37, pp. 436-437.
116
Engels to Paul Lafargue (June 27, 1893), MEW 39, p. 89.
117
Engels to Sombart (March 11, 1895), MEW39, p. 428.
 The meaning of socialism 111
his efforts lurked the vexing philosophical problem of human "free will."
In his influential 1886 study, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical
German Philosophy, Engels implicitly raised this pivotal question: if the
ultimate causes of historical events were neither found in philosophical
ideology (Hegel) nor in the undialectical "old materialism" of Duhring
and Buchner, then how could one conceptualize the primary historical
structures in terms of which humans have motives and act?
Responding in "dialectical" fashion, Engels had argued that it was
impossible to explain what happened in history by appealing exclusively to
personal motives which often seemed to account for the actions of
individuals: "The many individual wills active in history produce, for the
most part, results other than those intended . . . Their motives in relation
to the total result are therefore likely [to be] only of secondary signifi-
cance."118 While this explanation successfully set limits to sheer voluntar-
ism and the idealist credo of an "autonomy of human consciousness," the
exact relationship between ultimate causation operating at the economic
base and human will remained unresolved.
In order to defend his model of historical materialism more effectively
against both idealist and materialist critics, Engels was forced to enhance
the causal significance of the ideological superstructure. However, this
meant that he had to "revise" Marx's powerful model of monocausal
determination in a more idealist direction, acknowledging the presence of
"substantial holes" in his old conception of history: "[W]e [Marx and
Engels] have neglected the formal side in favor of the content: the mode in
which mental representations arise."119 Suddenly, in Engels' famous
letters of the 1890s on historical materialism, Marx's method became a far
more complicated model of explaining social change than previously
depicted: "According to the materialist conception of history, the produc-
tion and reproduction of real life are the determining factors only in the
last instance . . . If somebody twists it into meaning that the economic
factor is the only determining factor, then the previous sentence is turned
into a meaningless, abstract, and absurd phrase."120 Despite Engels'
reaffirmation of "economic necessity," it is clear that he enhanced the
significance of the ideological and legal superstructure.
Yet, Engels probably wouldn't have accepted the charge that he was
"revising" historical materialism; in his mind, he was simply defining his
and Marx's earlier views with "more clarity and greater precision."121
1 x8
Friedrich Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy (New
York: International, 1935), p. 62.
119
Engels to Mehring (July 14, 1893), MEW39, p. 96.
120
Engels to Joseph Bloch (September 21, 1890), MEW37, p. 463.
121
Ibid., p. 463. This is also the thesis of S. D. Bailey, "The Revision of Marxism," in The
Review of Politics 16 (1954), p. 452.
112 Vision
Still, it is not difficult to see that it took Bernstein only a small change in
emphasis to move from Engels' model of "infinite groups of contradicting
forces" producing a "definite historical result that wasn't willed by
anybody,"122 to his revisionist proposition asserting that it was "neither
possible nor necessary to give socialism a purely materialistic basis."123 In
other words, Bernstein readmitted political and ideological forces along-
side purely economic factors, thereby turning Engels' determining "last
instance" into the pluralism of parallel acting forces, all potentially
capable of causing significant social effects.124 In Bernstein's new concep-
tion, economic causes created the structural presuppositions for the
acceptance of certain ideas, but how they rose to prominence and what
particular forms they took depended on a vast number of interacting
tendencies:
Whoever employs the materialist conception of history nowadays is duty bound to
use it in its most developed and not in its original form. This means that, in
addition to the development and the influence of the forces of production and the
relations of production, he is duty bound to take full account of the legal and moral
concepts, the historical and religious traditions of every epoch, geographical and
other natural influences, which include the nature of man himself and his
intellectual dispositions.125
Although economic "laws" were the theoretical and methodological
preconditions for a consequent materialist-dialectical explanation of
sociohistorical processes, they coexisted with consciousness and human
will. The latter were powerful causal factors in their own right, which, at
certain historical junctures, could even eclipse the force of economic
tendencies.126 Again, Bernstein's model resembles Karl Popper's critical
rationalism worked out decades later. Like Popper, Bernstein objected to
the historicist mistake of confusing unconditional prophesies with condi-
tional scientific predictions. Popper put it well: " . . . historicists overlook
the dependence of trends on initial conditions. They operate with trends as if
they were unconditional, like laws. Their confusion of laws with trends
makes them believe in trends which are unconditional (and therefore
general); or, as we may say, in 'absolute trends'"121
Likewise, Bernstein insisted that the study of capitalist development
required a historically specific assessment of existing relations between
subjective factors and economic forces, based on exact data drawn from
22
Engels to Bloch (September 2 1 , 1890), MEW 37, p. 464.
23
PS, p. 200.
24
See Grebing, Der Revisionismus: Von Bernstein bis zum "Prager Friihling", p. 41.
25
PS, p. 16.
26
Ibid., p. 14.
27
Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), p. 128.
 The meaning of socialism 113
empirical research. Following his own statistical model situated within a
general evolutionist framework, Bernstein suggested that modern capital-
ist society was "far richer than earlier societies in ideologies which are not
determined by economics or by nature working as an economic force."128
As the growing productive capabilities of society fulfilled immediate
economic needs to an ever greater extent, ethical factors widened their
"scope for independent activity/' thus dramatically gaining in causal
significance.129
Given the proletariat's material position in the capitalist order, Bern-
stein could not ignore the importance of economic factors. Yet, he
consciously resisted the materialist reductionism of orthodox Marxists.
Instead, he sought to connect interests and ideas as the "opposing, but
interdependent poles" of a wide array of historical driving forces.130
Offering a subtle interpretation of "emancipatory interests," Bernstein
claimed that the interests guiding the working class' political actions were
always mediated by individual and collective forms of "consciousness,"
thus representing "thought reflexes, conclusions erected on mental
syntheses of mediated facts and therefore inevitably colored by ideol-
ogy."131 The very existence of mentally mediated "common interests" as
the spring of political action implied that, at times, the proletariat
sacrificed its "selfish, material interests" directed at economic advantage
to a "moral ideal" like solidarity, or other "feeling [s] of common
humanity and the recognition of social interdependence."132 Thus,
Bernstein concluded, "The interest which Marxist socialism presupposes
is, from the outset, furnished with a social or ethical element, and to that
extent it is not only a rationalbut also a moral interest, so that ideality in the
moral sense of the term is inherent in it.133
Here, Bernstein explicitly recognized the active role of a system of values
in relation to the scientific means-end chain. The realization of ultimate
socialist values was not simply dictated by economic necessity, but was
also a matter of active imagination, moral will, and conscious choice. In
short, superstructural elements - Lange's "regulative ideals" - proved to
be of great significance for the social democratic project of social change.
The daily struggle of the labor movement for social betterment gave rise to
128
PS, p. 19.
129
Ibid., p. 20.
130
Eduard Bernstein, Wesen und Ansichten des burgerlichen Radikalismus (Munich: Duncker
& Humblot, 1915), pp. 5-6, 32.
131
Bernstein, "The Realistic and Ideological Moments in Socialism," in MS, p. 234.
132
Eduard Bernstein, "Idee und Interesse in der Geschichte" (1924), in Bernstein A, A53;
"Was ist Sozialismus" (1918), in Hirsch, Ein revisionistisches Sozialismusbild, p. 157. See
also, Eduard Bernstein, Von der Sekte zur Partei: Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie Einst und
Jetzt (Jena: Diederichs, 1911), pp. 44-45.
133
Bernstein, "The Realistic and Ideological Moments of Socialism," in MS, p. 233.
114 Vision

a sense of solidarity anchored in both praxis and the ethical-legal conscious-

ness of workers - a mighty factor driving social development. 134 According
to Bernstein, "no action on the part of the masses" could have a "lasting
effect without a moral impetus." 135
While his rehabilitation of ethics opened up the possibility of a socialist
politics of human agency, Bernstein declined to follow Kant's lead in
positing the existence of an abstract "moral law" which obligated all
individuals in civil society independent of their social position:

Although we need to acknowledge the importance of ethical factors in socialism,

they are only of secondary importance. Modern socialism does not derive its
defining demands from an abstract idea of justice. Rather, it bases justice on a
historical justification apparent in the concrete economic and social conditions of
our present era . . . Only insofar as socialist theory, according to its own theoretical
principles, is capable of proving the decline of capitalism can it be considered
scientifically sound. This is the test for the correctness of theory.136
Thereby, he explicitly distanced himself from those neo-Kantian socialists
"who would like to dissolve Marxism into pure ethics." 137 Unable to
escape the old tension between empiricist skepticism and radical idealism,
he sought to discourage "extreme" conceptions of history that opted
either for an "objective" economic determinism or a "subjective" moral
law.138 Insisting that subjective factors emerged as structure-creating
forces only within the framework of economic development and its
ensuing class relations, Bernstein modified Marx's historical materialism
into what he called the "economic conception of history" - an expression
coined by the German liberal sociologist Ernst Barth. 139

An economic conception of history need not mean that only economic forces, only
economic motives, are recognized. It need only mean that economics constitute
the ever-recurring decisive form, the pivot on which the great movements in
history turn. To the words "materialist conception of history" cling all the
misunderstandings which are attached to the concept of materialism.140
From a Kautsky-Luxemburg orthodox perspective, of course, Bernstein
had entirely failed to grasp the vital connection between the weltan-

134
Bernstein, "Drei Antworten auf ein Inquisitorium," in Zur Theorie und Geschichte des
Sozialismus, pp. 10-11.
135
Bernstein, "The Realistic and Ideological Moments in Socialism," in MS, p. 240.
136
Eduard Bernstein, Die heutige Sozialdemokratie in Theorie und Praxis (Munich: Birk,
1906), pp. 6-7.
137
Eduard Bernstein, "Tugan Baranowsky als Sozialist," in Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft
und Sozialpolitik 28 (1909), p. 786.
138
Bernstein, "Der Marx-Cultus und das Recht zur Revision," p. 257.
139
Bernstein, "Der Revisionismus in der Sozialdemokratie," in Hirsch, Ein revisionistisches
Sozialismusbild, p. 100; and PS, p . 22.
140
Ibid.
 The meaning of socialism 115
sc/zaw/zc/z-philosophical and political-economic explanation of the
sociohistorical process, thus "reverting" to the fuzzy "eclecticism" of the
pre-Marxist "petit bourgeois socialist" who defined socialism from within
the confines of an "uncritical" positivism. In their opinion, Bernstein's
philosophy of science restored the autonomy of the subject at the expense
of a Hegelian subject-object identity which emphasized the historicity of
all social structures. According to Kautsky and Luxemburg, Bernstein's
empiricist bird's-eye view depersonalized and dehistoricized the social
observer, while at the same time reducing objects to petrified "facts" that
veiled the dialectical processes of historical becoming.
A few decades later, Georg Lukacs, too, would charge Bernstein with
"flattening the Marxist method," by displaying the empiricist's inability
to grasp the speculative totality of social phenomena. If "facts" were
excluded from social totality, they became "inflexible" and "dead."141 In
Bernstein's blueprint, the nature of man's relationship to the material
world was no longer accurately captured. Marx's celebrated notion of a
dynamic "ensemble of social relations" had but turned into a pathetic
"ensemble of facts."142 As his Marxist critics saw it, Bernstein had slipped
back into a static Cartesianism that accepted empirical data at face value
and allowed him to anchor socialism in the "eternal" moral values of
liberalism, while transforming historically conditioned categories into
timeless expressions of ethical "truth." 143 Luxemburg acerbically noted
that the "Father of Revisionism" had exhibited the same "false conscious-
ness" as those "ethical socialists" whose bourgeois attachment to Kant's
liberalism had blinded them to the philosophical superiority of Hegelian
dialectics. As far as "Red Rosa" was concerned, Bernstein and his
"anxious ethical comrades should drown in the moral absolutes of their
beloved Critique of Practical Reason."144

Socialism with a Kantian face?

Her sarcasm and her false identification of Bernstein's evolutionary
socialism with a traditional "neo-Kantian" position notwithstanding,
Luxemburg was right in noting that Bernstein's reconceptualization of
socialism had to be understood as part of the ongoing reaction against
Hegel's grand speculative philosophy and a short-lived celebration of
mechanical materialism at the middle of the century. By the 1870s,
141
Lukacs, "What is Orthodox Marxism?," in History and Class Consciousness, pp. 1-26.
142
See Hans-Peter Jager, Eduard Bernsteins Panorama: Versuch, den Revisionisms zu deuten
(Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1982), p. 122.
143
Bernstein boldly affirmed Kautsky's judgment in Bernstein to Vorlander (August 4,
1899), Bernstein A, D804.
144
Luxemburg cited in Peter Nettl, Rosa Luxemburg (London: Oxford UP, 1969), p. 12.
116 Vision
German philosophy witnessed the gradual rise of the neo-Kantian
movement. The two main neo-Kantian schools - the critical-idealist
Marburg School represented by Hermann Cohen, Karl Vorlander, and
Paul Natorp; and the more historicist and intuitionist Heidelberg School
of Wilhelm Dilthey, Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Rickert, and Georg
Simmel - began to attract influential followers among national-liberals
and left-liberals alike.145 Based on Kant's stipulation of a transcendental
moral law, prominent social democratic followers of the Marburg School,
like Kurt Eisner, Franz Staudinger, Konrad Schmidt, Karl Vorlander,
Max Adler, and Eduard David, eagerly sought to fill the conceptual
framework of critical idealism with Marx's political and economic
analysis, urging their party to marry Kantian ethics with Marxist political
economy.146
To a certain extent, Bernstein, too, joined in their rallying cry of "Back
to Kant," proclaiming that, "The modern proletarian movement fights its
emancipatory struggle under the banner of Kant, not Hegel."147 But
unlike his neo-Kantian comrades, Bernstein meant to evoke the epi-
stemological skepticism of Kant's critical philosophy as a reminder for
orthodox Marxists not to fall prey to rigid dogmatism:
The method of this great philosopher [Kant] can serve as a pointer to the satisfying
solution to our problem. Of course we don't have to slavishly adhere to Kant's
form, but we must match his method to the nature of our own subject [socialism],
displaying the same critical spirit. Our critique must be directed against both a
skepticism that undermines all theoretical thought, and a dogmatism that relies on
ready-made formulas.148
As pointed out above, Bernstein remained aloof from a Kantianism that
sought to provide a systematic foundation of a socialist ethic. Rather, he
modeled his own ethical interpretation of socialism on F. A. Lange's
psychological reading of Kant, which drew heavily on the British tradition

145
For an excellent overview of neo-Kantian socialism, see Timothy Keck, "The Marburg
School and Ethical Socialism," in The Social Science Journal 14.3 (1977), pp. 105-119;
Thomas Willey, Back to Kant (Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1978); Helmut Holthey, Cohen
and Natorp, 2 vols. (Basel: Schwabe & Co., 1986); and Harry van der Linden, Kantian
Ethics and Socialism (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1988).
146
See, for example, Kurt Eisner, "Kant" in Kurt Eisners Gesammelte Schriften, 2 vols.
(Berlin, 1919); Franz Staudinger (a. k. a. "Sadi Gunter"), "Bernstein und die
Wissenschaft," in NZ17.2 (1898/99), pp. 644-653, and "Kant und der Socialismus: Ein
Gedenkwort zu Kants Todestage," in SM 8 (1904), pp. 103-114; Konrad Schmidt,
"Uber die geschichtsphilosophischen Ansichten Kants," in SM 7 (1903), pp. 683-691;
Karl Vorlander, Kant und Marx: Ein Beitrag zur Philosophic des Sozialismus (Tubingen: J.
C. B. Mohr, 1926); Max Adler, Marxistische Probleme (Berlin: Dietz, 1922).
147
Eduard Bernstein, "Tugan Baranowskys Marx-Kritik," in Dokumente des Sozialismus 5
(1905), p. 421.
148
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialimus moglich?," p. 64.
 The meaning of socialism 117
149
of empiricism. Unlike the Marburgers, who anchored their socialism
exclusively in the categorical imperative, Lange and Bernstein rejected
any methodological foundation of ethical idealism. This was reflected in
their positivistic interpretation of Kant's "critical method/' which strictly
limited science to the establishment of regularities between empirically
observable entities. Following Lange's theory, Bernstein's brand of
"neo-Kantianism" was not the source of his empiricist skepticism, but its
consequence.150
There were indeed a number of crucial differences between Lange's
philosophy and Marburger neo-Kantianism.151 For example, Lange
denied the a priori existence of ideas, thus agnostically rejecting any
"scientific" grounding of ideal factors like will or ethics. Interpreting
Kant's categories of the understanding as constituents of the human
brain, Lange's physiologism avoided Kant's transcendental explanation
of the categories as necessary, "rational" or "logical" constructs. Indeed,
there was no "systemic" connection between Lange's philosophy and his
conception of socialism other than his ad hoc stipulation of "noble
[socialist] personalities filled with pure idealism."152
But Lange and the Marburger socialists reached common ground in
their political reformism, interpreting the rise of the labor movement
within a general Enlightenment framework that emphasized unilinear
progress. Although he lauded Capital as an "excellent piece of work,"
Lange proceeded to separate "Marx's political perspectives and predic-
tions from his theory."153 For one, he rejected the Hegelian dialectics at
the core of Marx's method as having provided the basis for "the
bottomless ocean of metaphysical errors." In addition, Lange insisted that
Marx's "dogmatic materialism" needed to be refined from the "stand-
point of the ideal."154 Based on his strict separation of the world into a
"realm of science" and a "realm of ideas," Lange claimed that such
ethical "ideals" didn't serve to extend one's knowledge but to counteract

149
PS, p. 210.
150
See also Robert A. Gorman, "Empirical Marxism," in History and Theory 20 A (1981), p.
409.
151
Van der Linden, Kantian Ethics and Socialism, pp. 294-295. See also Klaus Christian
Kohnke, Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantianismus: Die deutsche Philosophic zwischen
Idealismus und Positivismus (Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1986); and Hans Martin Sass,
"Der Standpunkt des Ideals als kritische Uberwindung materialistischer und idealistis-
cher Metaphysik" in Knoll and Schops, Friedrich Albert Lange, Leben und Werk. These
authors argue convincingly that by offering a fundamental critique of basic neo-Kantian
assumptions, Lange cannot be seen as the precursor or founder of neo-Kantianism, but
as an alternative to it (pp. 188-206, 256).
152
Vorlander cited in Van der Linden, Kantian Ethics and Socialism, p. 294.
153
F. A. Lange, Die Arbeiterfrage, 5th ed. (Winterthur: Ziegler, 1894), p. 348.
154
Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, p. 54.
118 Vision
materialistic, deterministic assumptions, thereby making room for moral-
ity.155 By now, it should not be difficult to recognize Bernstein's own
philosophical position in Lange's epistemology and moral theory.
Soon after his death in 1875, Lange's views were fiercely attacked by his
former students, led by the well-known Hermann Cohen.156 Twenty-five
years later, the Marburger socialists battled Bernstein's philosophical
"eclecticism" with the same arguments Cohen used against Lange.
Stressing the prior role of the knowing subject in the structuring of
knowledge, Karl Vorlander vehemently rejected Bernstein's separation of
science and ethics. For the Marburgers, Bernstein had obviously been
influenced by the "misguided English empiricists and eudaemonistic
philosophers" who reduced science to a "crude empiricism" which
surrendered the systemic coherence of transcendental standards of ethical
judgment, and erroneously defined the end of morality as "the greatest
amount of material and moral well-being."157 Though Vorlander and
other social liberals agreed with Bernstein that a universalistic ethics ought
to serve as the guide for any socialist politics, they nonetheless insisted that
"scientific socialism" was indeed possible and desirable in the form of a
socialist ethic constructing and explicating the moral law. In other words,
a priori principles of reason were revealed in scientific and moral progress
in history.
Seen from the perspective of the Marburger socialists, the tension
between empiricism and idealism in Bernstein's epistemology was indeed
troubling. But this does not mean that Bernstein failed to grasp Kantian
philosophical principles.158 Though an autodidact, he had accumulated
basic philosophical knowledge through long years of private study.
Obviously, his intellectual efforts hardly made him the equivalent of
academically trained philosophers or social scientists. But neither was
Friedrich Engels - nor, for that matter, were other prominent party
leaders like Wilhelm Liebknecht, August Bebel, and Ignaz Auer. Victor
Adler, the Austrian party boss, was a medical doctor who readily admitted
to his "ignorance in matters of theory;" V. I. Lenin never finished his
academic studies, and even Karl Kautsky openly acknowledged that
philosophy had never been his "strong suit."159 With the exception of
Luxemburg and Plekhanov, German social democracy at the turn of the
155
See Kohnke, Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantianismus, p. 253.
156
Hermann Cohen, "Friedrich Albert Lange," in Philosophie Journal 37 (1876), p. 378.
157
Vorlander, Kant und Marx, p. 185.
158
For example, Fletcher (1984) asserts that "it is doubtful whether Bernstein ever acquired
a solid grasp of Kant" (p. 131). But as Walther (1981, p. 129), Grebing, (1977, p. 40),
and Gustafsson (1972, pp. 113-115) emphasize, Bernstein explicitly linked his critique
not to Kant but to F.A. Lange's Die Arbeiterfrage.
159
Karl Kautsky, "Ein Brief iiber Bernstein an Plechanow," in DerKampf 18 (1925), p. 2.
 The meaning of socialism 119
century was characterized by the weak philosophical background of its
main theorists, and, in particular, by a remarkable ignorance regarding
Hegelian philosophy. 160
Bernstein's pivotal intellectual achievement - the innovative reconcep-
tualization of the relationship between socialism, ethics, and science that
created the theoretical precondition for reconnecting the socialist tradi-
tion with its liberal origins - required no more than the acceptance of
certain basic Kantian and Fabian philosophical assumptions, and their
logical juxtaposition with his political theses. 161 Throughout his life,
Bernstein, first and foremost, emphasized the political ramifications of his
theoretical enterprise: the strengthening of an ethical reformism, which, in
his opinion, could only be achieved by sacrificing philosophical "system-
thinking" to a less coherent but more applicable "eclecticism":
Eclecticism - selecting from different explanations and ways of dealing with
phenomena - is often only the natural reaction against the doctrinaire desire to
derive everything from one thing and to treat everything according to one and the
same method. Whenever this desire gets out of hand, eclecticism breaks through
again and again with elemental force. It is the rebellion of sober reason against the
inbuilt tendency of every doctrine to confine thought in a straitjacket.162
More than anything, it was his commitment to the liberal paradigm that
led to Luxemburg's and Kautsky's charges against Bernstein's "petty-
bourgeois opportunism." In their opinion, he had clearly "betrayed"
Marxism by resurrecting precisely the kind of pre-Marxian socialist
"eclecticism" against which Kautsky had fought so bitterly his entire
life.163
No doubt, Bernstein had crossed the fundamental divide separating
Marxian socialism and "bourgeois reformism." He no longer regarded
the dichotomy between "liberalism" and "socialism" as useful. Consist-
ent with his philosophical position, Bernstein continued publicly to
announce his sympathies for the liberal tradition with its emphasis on
freedom, individual autonomy, and human rights.
160
Steinberg, Sozialismus und Deutsche Sozialdemokratie, pp. 56-60.
161
See also, Sheehan, Marxism and the Philosophy of Science, p. 75.
162
PS, p. 18.
163
Karl Kautsky, "Karl Kautsky," in Meiner, Die Volkswirtschaftslehre, pp. 19-21.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized
liberalism55: rethinking economics^ state,
and democracy

From production to distribution: theories of value

Bernstein's "Kantian" epistemology undermined the "scientific" rela-
tionship between Marxist socialism and science in yet another crucial
area: political economy. We must remember that Engels had credited
Marx's "two great discoveries" - the materialist conception of history and
the revelation of the secret of capitalist production through surplus value -
with finally transforming "utopian socialism" into a "modern science."1
Thus, at the center of the founders' and Bernstein's diverging political and
economic conceptions was the role of "value" in regulating and reproduc-
ing the social structure of capitalism. However, this did not mean that
Bernstein advocated a total rejection of Marxist economic theory. True to
his "eclectic" leanings, Bernstein once again presented his views on
political economy as a "compromise" position designed to incorporate
elements from both Marx's "objectivist" labor theory and the "subjec-
tivist" marginal utility theories of British and Austrian economists such as
Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger, and Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk.
Bernstein cautiously prefaced his remarks on economic theory by
denying the disputes raging over the validity of Marx's concept of value a
central role for socialist theory.2 Nonetheless, weighty matters of both
political theory and practice were at stake. The labor theory of value had
been the starting point of Marx's celebrated "physiology of the bourgeois
system" - the scientific analysis of the inner coherence and vital processes
of the capitalist system.3 Put briefly, if Bernstein disagreed with Marx's
1
Engels, Anti-Duhring, in MECW 25, pp. 271, 27.
2
Eduard Bernstein, "Arbeitswert oder Nutzwert," in Zur Geschichte und Theorie des
Sozialismus, p. 106. See also Eduard Bernstein, "Allerhand Werttheoretisches," in
Dokumente des Sozialismus 5 (1905), p. 221; "Das Bleibende am Marxismus," in
Sozialismus Einst und Jetzt, p. 167.
3
Karl Marx, "Theorien iiber den Mehrwert," in MEW 26, p. 162.

120
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 121
approach, then, by extension, he also had to reject the main arguments of
Marx's analysis of capitalist social relations in Capital. If one does this,
then the crucial Marxist distinction between liberalism and socialism has
indeed lost its theoretical justification.
The obvious starting point from which to unravel Bernstein's revisionist
arguments is the examination of the relationship among the following
critical ideas: value, surplus value, and abstract labor. Like the classical
British political economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo, Marx
considered the value of commodities to be determined by the human labor
incorporated in them. Although Marx accepted some subjective, utilitar-
ian assessments - like those expressed in the idea that a product's "use
value" (utility) partially determined its exchange value - he still insisted
that the determining factor of a commodity's value was the human labor
"encapsulated" in the finished product.4 The exchange value of a
commodity, understood as the "center of gravity for the commodity's
oscillating market price," ultimately determined the price of the product.
Thus, Marx's value theory clearly made the case for an "objectivist"
determination of prices based on production costs; "subjective" or
"psychological" factors were a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for
price determinations.5
But Marx's economic theory differed from classical political economy
in another respect. Ricardo had never asked the question which most
interested Marx: under which sociohistorical conditions does the product
of labor assume the form of a "commodity?"6 In other words, Marx set
out to investigate why - under the current capitalist mode of production -
unique, subjective human labor appeared as the "value" of exchangeable
"things" called commodities.
Therefore, Marx did not regard "value" merely as a quantitative
economic category, but also as the expression of underlying social
relations. Known as "commodity fetishism," this problem denotes the
process through which social labor is represented in the form of an
intrinsic quality of things, which, in turn, appear to be endowed with
independent, "subjective" qualities as though they were "persons,"
impacting on and interacting with "real" people.7 Hence, the phenom-
enon of "commodity fetishism" could be employed as a powerful
analytical tool to reveal the alienating character of the essentially "in-
4
Ibid., pp. 36-41.
5
See also Lothar F. Neumann, "Die Werttheorie und der Sozialismus bei Marx, Bernstein
und in der heutigen Diskussion," in Heimann and Meyer, Bernstein und der demokratische
Sozialismus, pp. 293-299.
6
C /, p. 80.
7
See Lucio Coletti, "Bernstein and the Marxism of the Second International," in From
Rousseau to Lenin (London: Monthly Review Press, 1974).
122 Vision
verted" capitalist world where "things" rule over "people." Unlike the
classical economists, Marx linked the sociohistorical aspect of value
formation to the corresponding "bourgeois" ideological expression based
upon the capitalist mode of production. Whereas Smith and Ricardo
"wrongly" equated the human process of production with "commodity
production" - a self-evident necessity imposed by nature itself- Marx's
critique of political economy (the subtitle of Capitall) identified various
modes of production as limited sociohistorical phenomena which were
always associated with particular forms of ideology and class domination.
Next, Marx analyzed the process of commodity exchange, an operation
that obviously required an abstract common denominator rendering the
"values" of two different commodities commensurable. In other words,
concrete human labor- calculated on the basis of "abstract" equivalents-
had to take on the form of "abstract human labor," otherwise they would
lose their exchangeability. This crucial abstraction allowed Marx to
explain "value" as "mere homogeneous congelations of undifferentiated
human labor" - objective, quantitative units standing in for a purely
subjective, qualitative process.8 Nonetheless, "abstract human labor"
was based on real, concrete value, created by real, concrete human labor
power. Marx insisted that, despite this necessary "abstraction," he had
staked his analytical claims on empirical grounds.
Equipped with his crucial concepts of "value" and "abstract labor,"
Marx took the final step in uncovering the "secret" of the capitalist
production process: the exploitation of the working class in the name of
"commutative justice." Put simply, his main argument went as follows:
although commodities appeared to be freely exchanged as equivalents in a
non-coercive manner, the owners of the means of production were still
able to extract "surplus value" from their workers in the form of unpaid
labor time. This "hidden exploitation," occurring within the framework
of a "fair exchange" on the "free market" was made possible because
material needs forced workers to sell, as quickly as possible, their sole
exchangeable "commodity" - their ability to perform labor for any
capitalist who would hire them for a wage. As R. G. Peffer notes, Marx
never gave a clear-cut definition or explication of his concept of exploita-
tion. While he sometimes employed the term in a morally condemnatory
fashion, there is considerable debate among the interpreters of his work as
to whether this negative moral import is a necessary characteristic of
exploitation.9
Usually, Marx simply observed that capitalists were in the position of
owning enough material goods to sustain themselves without the crucial
8
CIy p. 38.
9
Peffer, Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice, p. 137.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 123
labor-power-wage exchange for longer periods of time, a significant
advantage which put them in control of the labor market. Their possession
of private property allowed them to enter into a contract with workers that
purchased labor power at its value - the minimum time necessary to
"reproduce workers as workers." Paying them such a "minimum wage/'
the employers then used their "legal control" of the working place and
working conditions to compel laborers to produce more. As the crucial
political-legal instrument of class domination, the bourgeois state secured
the enforcement of the wage contract.
In this way, capital exploited labor while maintaining the appearance of
commutative justice on the basis of "equivalent exchange" according to
the bourgeois-capitalist ideology of "individual liberty." But Marx placed
the origins of workers' exploitation at the level of production, advancing
beyond the old mercantilist conceptions of early-nineteenth-century
socialists. For example, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon had supported the
notion of "profit upon alienation," thereby locating the origin of profit in
the difference between selling and buying prices. Equating exploitation
with "theft," Proudhon's arguments revealed a conflict between exploita-
tion and justice/legality. Conversely, Marx considered modern social
inequality in the form of capitalist exploitation occurring as the "logical
consequence" of the political-economic system as such, and in accord-
ance with the development of juridical-political "equality." His occa-
sional moralistic tone notwithstanding, Marx sought to explain exploita-
tion in a descriptive, "scientific" manner. In fact, he deliberately made his
theory of exploitation dependent on the "objective" relationship between
economic variables operating on the level of production in order to avoid
"unscientific" value judgments.10
Marx's economic theory thus provided a conceptual framework for
explaining exploitation in the "legitimate" scientistic language of the
nineteenth century: in spite of the existence of liberal-bourgeois institu-
tions guaranteeing formal equality, social injustice continued in the form
of coerced, unpaid labor (surplus labor) - disguised exploitation based
upon actualpov/QT differentials between classes. Hence, only the abolition
of the commodity form - the revolutionary transformation of the source of
exploitation on the level ofproduction - would lead to subsequent alteration
of the ideological-legal state apparatus and the socialist supersession of the
ideological principles of "capitalist justice."
However, as the century drew to a close, Marx's economic objectivism
explaining value as arising solely from productive labor, came under fire
from a number of social-liberal and neo-classical liberal economists who
10
C/, p. 194.
124 Vision
had fallen under the spell of rising "subjectivist" marginal utility theories
in England and Austria. Regarding the subjective preferences of con-
sumers expressed in utilitarian psychological considerations like "desire"
as the crucial element in determining the value of a commodity, marginal-
ists attacked Marx's "objectivist" labor theory of value, including his
highly complex and "faulty" conclusions regarding price formation and
falling rates of profit.
Briefly, Marx had argued that surplus value could only be extracted
from "variable capital" - labor power - and not from "constant capital"
(the means of production).11 As a result, the rate of profit (the ratio of the
total sum of the invested capital over surplus-value) should fall as
technological innovation caused the share of variable capital in the
invested capital to decrease. However, Marx and Engels could not close
their eyes to the overwhelming empirical evidence indicating that the
average rates of profit in all developed capitalist countries were roughly
equal, regardless of specific industry sectors and their concurrent dif-
ferences regarding their share of variable capital. This vexing problem
indicated a serious contradiction between Marx's fundamental theoreti-
cal assumptions and empirical reality. Despite new "solutions" offered in
subsequent volumes of Capital, this conceptual dilemma remained
unresolvable within the confines of a labor theory of value. For example,
Bernstein charged that Marx's new lack of emphasis on the significance
of value in the exchange of commodities apparent in volume 3 of Capital
had led to the formulation of a price theory which undermined the role of
labor in price formation, and thus the very raison d'etre of his economic
theory.12
The German economist Werner Sombart best expressed the growing
concerns of Marx's liberal critics by concluding that Marx's concept of
value was a purely theoretical construct which did not correspond to any
observable sociohistorical formation.13 Building on Sombart's argu-
ments, the well-respected Austrian neo-classical economist, Eugen von
Bohm-Bawerk, published a long essay which attempted to show that
neither a deductive nor an empirical proof of the labor theory of value
could be successfully sustained.14 For marginalists, Marx provided a
phenomenology of value whose indeterminate relation to price constitu-
tion was never fully acknowledged. In this spirit, Bohm-Bawerk referred
11
Ibid., pp. 199-211.
12
Eduard Bernstein, "Vorfragen einer Sozialistischen Theorie der Gewerkschaf-
tsbewegung," in SM 10 (1906), p. 843.
13
For a detailed discussion of these problems, see Howard and King, A History of Marxian
Economics, pp. 46-55.
14
Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, "Karl Marx and the Close of his System," in Paul Sweezy, ed.
Karl Marx and the Close of his System (New York: Kelley, 1966).
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 125
to Marx's system as a shaky "house of cards/' mired in the speculative
categories of Hegelian philosophy. 15 Conversely, marginalists chose to
remain within the limits of "price theories/' claiming that discussions
centered on the "metaphysical concept of value" yielded but "unscien-
tific" conclusions.
However, whether, as Colletti asserts, the origin of this dispute between
Marxist economic theorists and their neo-classical and revisionist critics
derived from the latters' profound misunderstanding of Marx's concept of
"abstract labor," 16 or whether it reflected legitimate disagreements over
the epistemological and empirical foundations of "value" itself, has
remained the subject of long theoretical debates that originated with
Sombart's and Bohm-Bawerk's critiques. Such controversies over the
analytic merit of the concept of "value" were carried on throughout the
twentieth century by socialist economic theorists like Paul Sweezy,17 Joan
Robinson, 18 and their more recent counterparts, Alec Nove, G. A. Cohen,
John Roemer, Jon Elster, and other representatives of "analytical
Marxism." 19
Seeking to mediate between the two opposing camps, Bernstein
questioned the usefulness of developing a new theories of value. He
argued that some arguments of both schools were pertinent to the more
important political discussion of how to challenge capitalist conditions of
economic exploitation. 20 He illustrated this eclectic approach to value
theory by means of an oft-cited allegory:
Peter and Paul stand before a shop window filled with minerals.
"These are parallel-planed hemihedral crystals/' says Peter.
"These are pyrites," says Paul.
Which of the two is right?
"Both are right," says the mineralogist. "Peter's statement refers to form, Paul's
to substance." .. . Translated into the language of political economy, the same can
be said about the long quarrel over value theory.21
Bernstein believed that Marxist and marginalist concepts of value
15
Bohm-Bawerk cited in ibid., pp. 51-52.
16
Colletti, From Rousseau to Lenin, pp. 79-81.
17
Paul Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development (New York: Oxford UP, 1946).
18
Joan Robinson, An Essay on Marxian Economics (London: Macmillan, 1949).
19
See, for example, G. A. Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History (Princeton: Princeton UP,
1978); Alec Nove, The Economics of Feasible Socialism (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1982);
John Roemer, A General Theory of Exploitation and Class (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP,
1982); Jon Elster, Making Sense of Marx (New York: Cambridge UP, 1985); and Ian
Steedman, ed. The Value Controversy (London: New Left Books, 1981).
20
Bernstein, "Allerhand Werttheoretisches,"pp. 558-559. For Bernstein, the search for an
absolute concept of value that would include all determining factors would prove to be a
fruitless enterprise.
21
Bernstein, "Arbeitswert oder Nutzwert," pp. 101-102.
126 Vision
addressed two different dimensions of the same problem: "Economic
value is androgynous: it contains the element of utility (use-value,
demand) and cost of production (labor power). Which of these two
aspects determines value? Surely, not one without the other."22 Thus he
argued for maintaining Marx's emphasis on human labor as the "sub-
stance" of commodities while also accepting the role of marginal utility
theory in explaining the "form," or the "magnitude" of value. Standing
on their own, however, both theories seemed to Bernstein to be fraught
with serious shortcomings. For example, he accused the marginalists of
focusing exclusively on utility, thus abstractly treating price formation as a
"mathematical operation" removed from the "real conditions" of empiri-
cal complexity, which added non-calculable factors to the capitalist's
decision to sell his commodity at a certain price.23
Along the same line of argument, Bernstein charged that Marx's theory
of value - relying on productive labor in determining a commodity's value
- also involved itself in a number of misleading abstractions and
reductions. For one, Marx incorrectly abstracted from use value, which
led to the identification of exchange value with "abstract human labor,"
and ultimately reduced various concrete forms of labor to a "metaphysical
concept" which failed to take into consideration more tangible factors like
productivity, diligence, and skill.24 This is not to say that Bernstein did not
acknowledge that any scientific analysis of complex social phenomena
required a certain degree of abstraction which was an unavoidable
operation for the specific purposes of demonstration. Echoing Sombart's
and Bohm-Bawerk's arguments, however, Bernstein claimed that Marx
had gone too far, reducing value to a "purely abstract entity" devoid of
"scientific validity."25 Though Marx had masterfully employed these
"mental constructions" for the purpose of exposing the workings of the
capitalist economy, he had ultimately failed to develop a truly scientific
theory.26
The implications of Bernstein's empiricist judgment were obvious: if
Marx's value theory lacked proper scientific grounding, then his crucial
understanding of "surplus value" was flawed as well. For Bernstein,
"surplus value" amounted to a "metaphysical image of which we have no
example in reality," for exploitation could not be calculated in a "purely
economic fashion."27 Standing with one foot on subjectivist grounds,
22
Ibid., p. 102.
23
Bernstein, "Allerhand Werttheoretisches," p. 371.
24
See Gerhard Himmelmann, "Die Rolle der Werttheorie in Bernsteins Konzept der
politischen Okonomie des Sozialismus," in Heimann and Meyer, Bernstein und der
demokratische Sozialismus, p. 313.
25 26
PS, p . 5 2 . Ibid., p . 5 5 .
27
Bernstein, "Allerhand Werttheoretisches," p. 558.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 127
Bernstein was bound to question the alleged objectivism of Marx's theory
of surplus value, with its core claim to provide an exact standard for the
actual degree of exploitation in concrete cases. Having thus robbed
Marx's theory of its scientific status, Bernstein emphasized the political
function of the notion of exploitation: it contributed to social democracy's
educational task of showing the proletariat the social injustice connected
with the generation of profit. However, Bernstein's interpretation de-
prived Marx's theory of its central claim, because early socialist theorists
like Proudhon had already provided the working class with ethical
ammunition against capitalist exploitation. Consistent with his epi-
stemological arguments against "scientific socialism," Bernstein dis-
avowed Engels' claim that Marx's economic theory represented a major
"scientific" achievement.
Once again, Bernstein's empiricist skepticism had triumphed over the
need for dogmatic security. Considering exploitation an empirical condi-
tion manifested in the worker's low living standard, capitalist injustice was
"demonstrable from experience" and required "no deductive proof."
Hence, he denied that the case for a "scientific socialism" could be made
"just on the fact that the wage laborer does not receive the full value of the
product of his labor."28 According to Bernstein, workers had always been
aware of the conditions of inequality underlying the economic and
political subjugation which forced them to produce more than they
received in wages. But as far as the concrete political practice of the labor
movement was concerned, it was "unimportant whether or not one
accepts the development of the theory of surplus value according to
Marx."29 The point was to educate workers to see that their wages did not
reflect the full value of their labor, thus appealing to their sense of justice
and strengthening their will to organize effective forms of political and
social resistance.
Bernstein did not see as the true test of "socialist" economic theories
whether they "correctly" interpreted the myriad aspects of value forma-
tion, but how they helped to advance perennial union demands for a closer
correspondence between wages and performance and price formation
according to rational principles of cost coverage. In this regard, Bernstein
revealed his sympathies for the pragmatic discourse of labor unionists and
SPD Praktiker. What made him different, however, was his unwillingness
to compromise on the core ethical principles of socialism. In other words,
applied to the real conditions of advanced capitalism, any theory of
surplus value was politically translatable only as an ethically motivated

28
PS, p. 52, 56.
29
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 60.
128 Vision
theory of workers' emancipation, designed to strengthen the proletariat's
resolve to fight "not against the fact of surplus labor but the extent of it." 30
Bernstein therefore insisted that any theory of value ought to emphasize its
moral components - transcendental principles of equality and justice,
which Marx and Engels had woefully neglected in favor of their histori-
cism. Though Marxist economic theory illustrated the structural linkages
between production and exploitation, the latter was not simply an
objective relationship between economic variables, but, most important-
ly, expressed a violation of moral standards based on "eternal" liberal
principles of justice. 31

The role of the state

In line with his idealist revision of historical materialism, Bernstein strove
to provide a critique of capitalist economy that relied on a more balanced
explanation of the relationship between "objective" forces at the econ-
omic base and its corresponding forms in the "superstructure" - the state,
law, and morality. Seeking to justify his position on the basis of his
selective reading of Engels' late writings, Bernstein's theoretical move was
nonethelesss fundamentally "un-Marxist" in its reduction of social
inequality to a question of wages. In other words, it turned exploitation
into a sociopolitical problem based on the unjust distribution of social
wealth which could never be solved through economics alone. 32
Bernstein therefore declined to fight the "utopian" battle against the
very existence of both the wage system and the money form.33 Rather, he
anchored his socialist strategy in those practical concerns that seemed to
correspond more closely to the working class' pressing political demands
for a more equitable redistribution of the social product:

Today, the struggle of the working class is not directed against the wage form itself,
but against the economic dependency relations which depress wages and prevent
their rise according to the general increase of social wealth. The wage form is
simply one part of an economic system that must be changed through the creation
of a democratic-cooperative collectivism. It is only for symbolic reasons that we
refer to this desired change of the wage system as a "struggle against wage labor."
In reality, it is a struggle against the system of wage determination.34
30
Bernstein, "The Realistic and Ideological Moments in Socialism," in MS, pp. 239-240.
31
Bernstein, "Tugan Baranovsky als Sozialist," in Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und
Sozialpolitik 28 (1909), pp. 789-790.
32
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 71.
33
Bernstein, "Vorfragen einer Sozialistischen Theorie der Gewerkschaftsbewegung," pp.
844-845.
34
Bernstein, "Zur Frage des ehernen Lohngesetzes: Nachwort," in Zur Theorie und
Geschichte des Sozialismus, pp. 11-IS.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 129
Marx, of course, had insisted that the social inequality between capital and
labor reflected in the class character of capitalist society would always
reassert itself as long as the economic base of society remained unalter-
ed.35 This meant that the reproduction of both exploitation and repressive
class relations occurred on the level of economic production. Reformist-
redistributive policies implemented by a democratically elected socialist
government operating within the old economic framework would never
escape the biased logic of capitalist accumulation. Political measures
aimed at eliminating social inequality would prove themselves incapable
of moving capitalist society even an inch closer to its socialist telos. After
all, the proper functioning of capitalism - the production and distribution
of commodities - depended on the existence of a liberal political system
that guaranteed the survival of the free-market system. The "bourgeois-
liberal state" could therefore hardly be more than a "committee for
managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie," whose external
form and mechanisms of repression would only disappear as the era of
commodity-producing societies came to an end in a genuine socialist
revolution.
Diverging from Marx, Bernstein returned at least partially to the
subjectivism of the marginalists, thereby supporting the general liberal
view of society as composed of equal and independent individual
proprietors - categories of "bourgeois ideology" which Marx had
criticized in both The Jewish Question and Critique of the Gotha Program,
and which he further ridiculed in his famous allusion to bourgeois
"Robinson Crusoe economists."36 Shattering Marx's economic interpre-
tation of social totality, Bernstein considered the state as no longer a
secondary structure dependent on more primary class relations on the
level of production, but as a semi-independent sphere capable of aggres-
sive intervention, and thus critical for evolutionary socialism understood
as ethical reformism.37
Consequently, he put his faith in the ability of liberal-democratic
institutions to accommodate the interests of the working class. In this
context, we must remember that Marxist theorists writing at the turn of
the century still had not offered a comprehensive formal treatise on the
state. Marx's own discussion consisted of a number of scattered and
inconsistent general observations on the role and the character of
the "bourgeois state," usually couched in terms of his analysis of
particular historical situations like the 1848 revolutions and the 1871
35
C/,pp. 617-621.
36
Ibid., pp. 76-83.
37
Eduard Bernstein, "Die Staatstheorien und der Sozialismus," in Sozialismus Etnst und
Jetzt, pp. 75-90.
130 Vision
Paris Commune. 38 Criticizing Engels' anti-statist "utopianism" culmina-
ting in his famous notion of the "withering away of the state," Bernstein
emphasized instead the state's flexible character and predicted its trans-
formative potential from an arbitrary "power above the nation," into a
"legal body of democratic self-administration." 39 Though he agreed with
Marx on the coercive nature of the nineteenth-century state, particularly the
German state, Bernstein considered instrumentalist interpretations of the
state exclusively as an "organ of bourgeois oppression" as "too nar-
row." 40
If Marx de-emphasized the value of the state in bringing about lasting
social reforms, then Ferdinand Lassalle's exaggeration of the state's role in
facilitating a socialist transformation of society represented the other
extreme. Though Bernstein shared Lassalle's emphasis on universal
suffrage as the crucial precondition for social democracy, he nonetheless
rejected the latter's Hegelian idealized collectivism, which, in the name of
a proletarianized "general will," demanded the transformation of the
liberal "night watchman state" into the prime instrument of working-class
rule. Maintaining his long-standing suspicion of Lassallean state socialism
and its "foggy notion of an all-encompassing nationalization of produc-
tion," 41 Bernstein rejected the notion of a patronizing state indiscrimi-
nately dispensing social benefits to its citizens. He stressed the individual's
responsibility for his or her own economic welfare, adding that there was
no prospect for it to be "abolished" in any future socialist order:
Socialism can only facilitate the discharge of this duty. Anything more than that
would be undesirable. We all know that the responsibility for oneself is only one
side of a social principle, the obverse of which is personal freedom. The one is
inconceivable without the other. However contradictory it may sound, the notion
of abolishing the individual's responsibility for his own economic welfare is
thoroughly anti-socialist.42
Hence, the state's power in the economic realm needed to be limited, for
self-directed economic initiative in certain areas remained an important
element guaranteeing individual freedom.43
38
For a discussion of Marxist state theory, see, for example, Graeme Duncan, "The Marxist
Theory of the State," in G. H. R. Parkinson, ed. Marx and Marxisms (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1982), pp. 129-144; Nicos Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism (London:
Verso, 1980); Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1969); Claus Offe, "Thesis on the Theory of State," in New German Critique 6
(Fall, 1975), pp. 137-147; and Hal Draper, Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, vol. I. (New
York: Monthly Review Press, 1977).
39
Eduard Bernstein, "The Social and Political Significance of Space and Number," in MS,
40
p. 97. Bernstein, Der Sozialismus Einst undjetzt, p. 88.
41
Bernstein, "Zum Thema Socialliberalismus und Collectivismus," p. 181.
42
Bernstein, "The Social and Political Significance of Space and Number," in MS, p. 94.
43
Ibid., pp. 91-92.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 131
Bernstein looked upon the state in the more balanced manner of L. T.
Hobhouse, J. A. Hobson, and other British "New Liberals." Emerging on
the political scene in full force in the first decade of the new century, the
New Liberals linked demands for greater economic equality with their
traditional support for individual freedom by positing an activist, but
democratic state as the possible site of a more harmonious association of
citizens collectively and consciously regulating the terms of their mutual
interactions.44 This new liberal vision saw capitalism harboring at its core
structural-political and economic inequalities which could be reduced
with the help of an interventionist state apparatus anchored in concrete
social institutions that guaranteed political equality, universal suffrage,
and a democratic representation of societal interests.45
However, this did not mean that Bernstein assumed the complete
eradication of diverging social interests. By arguing that modernity had
put an end to earlier forms of homogeneous social action based on strong
solidaristic bonds among members of small communities - including
idealized ethical relationships of harmony, like ancient forms of "direct
democracy" -he was able to make an even stronger case for the survival of
centralized adminstrative structures. The fact that modern states were
characterized by extensive territories and a large citizenry fostered the
emergence of ever more complex and differentiated group interests, thus
increasing the need for a "coordinated regulation of social and economic
matters."46 That is, the persistence of conflicting interests in modernity
corresponded to the emergence of a pluralist society, making it both
impossible and undesirable to "simply leave the state behind."47
The complexity of modern society increased the pressure on the state to
produce legislation reflecting the "common good" as the outcome of
rational and democratic negotiations across class lines. Though Bernstein
conceded that overlapping class interests rarely went beyond general
policies like education, health care, and national defense, he nonetheless
saw in the liberal-functionalist ideal of the "common good" the ideologi-
cal expression of persisting forms of social cohesion, which could serve as
a powerful regulative idea and common normative matrix connecting all
social classes. According to Bernstein, the true function of the state as the
44
See, for example, L. T. Hobhouse, "Liberalism/' in James Meadowcroft, ed. Liberalism
and Other Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994), pp. 1-120.
45
F o r a discussion of t h e " N e w L i b e r a l s , " see Blaazer, The Popular Front and the Progressive
Tradition; R i c h a r d Bellamy, Liberalism and Modern Society (University Park, P A : P e n n
State U P , 1 9 9 2 ) ; M . F r e e d e n , The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform (Oxford:
Oxford U P , 1 9 7 8 ) ; a n d S. Collini, Liberalism and Sociology: L . T. Hobhouse and Political
Argument in England 1880-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979).
46
B e r n s t e i n , Der Sozialismus Einst und Jetzt, p . 8 7 .
47
Ibid., p . 9 0 .
132 Vision
"appointed guardian of the common good," was its representation of
society as a whole.48 Therefore, a "liberal" socialism ought to acknowl-
edge both existing forms of class conflict and class consensus expressed as
communal interests (political cooperation) and special interests (compe-
tition).
Underlying this vision was Bernstein's sanguine assessment of the
sustainability of a "democratic evolution" even in the Wilhelmine
Empire, which, he thought, would eventually culminate in a state
reflecting the political will of all its citizens. Once in the hands of liberal
socialists, such representative democracies could gradually abolish both
political privileges and the "strong tendency of the dominant classes to
burden other classes with the costs of public welfare."49 Kautsky and his
orthodox comrades begged to differ with Bernstein's "evolutionism;" not
so much on the desirability or even the possibility of reform and
gradualism in general, but about the prospects for a peaceful democratiz-
ation and for socialist cooperation with a liberal bourgeoisie specifically in
the German Empire.
Overall, then, Bernstein perceived the state in pluralist terms as a
potentially "autonomous" arena which regulated the "common affairs"
of individuals. With unshakable optimism, he emphasized the gradual
realization of the "contractarian idea" as the ontological underpinnings
of his progressive belief in the "organic evolution" of solidarity and
socialism.50 Sharing the utilitarian creed which saw society develop
unilinearly from inscribed forms of social status to the rule of voluntary
contracts fostering the expansion of equality, reciprocity, and legality,
Bernstein underscored the significance of "advancing legal concepts and
institutions which facilitate the mediation of class conflicts without
resorting to force."51 Hence, he reiterated the importance of the politi-
cal sphere for both easing the external relationship among different
states, and "institutionalizing" - and thus harnessing - domestic class
conflict.52
Viewing the modern state as an increasingly autonomous site also
allowed him to define class inequalities in terms of differences in income
and privileges, rather than as systemic contradictions rooted in the process
48
B e r n s t e i n , " W a s ist S o z i a l i s m u s ? , " i n H e i m a n n , Ein revisionistisches Sozialismusbild, p .
157.
49
Bernstein, "Die Notwendigkeit in Natur und Geschichte," in Zur Theorie und Geschichte
des Sozialismus, p. 68.
50
Bernstein, Von der Sekte zur Parted pp. 44-45.
51
Bernstein, "Idee und Interesse in der Geschichte/' in Bernstein A, A53.
52
Bernstein's call for mediating class conflicts found its full expression in neo-corporatist
"social partnerships" between employers and labor in post-World War II European
countries like Austria, Germany, and Sweden.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 133
53
of production. Bernstein therefore implicitly challenged the Marxist
thesis of "irreconcilable class conflicts" emerging from the contradictions
at the economic base. This meant contesting the Marxist dichotomy
between liberalism and socialism: "The term 'social-liberalism' indicates
in no way a fundamental opposition to 'social democracy.'"54
Once the Marxian connection between economic production and social
structure was cut, Bernstein was in the position to restore politics, the
state, and democratic theory to the center of socialist thought. It allowed
the evolutionary project of socialist transformation to originate in a
distinct "political" realm where the general will of citizens was represen-
ted in a democratically accountable parliament. Further strategic ramifi-
cations of Bernstein's theory of state were obvious: liberal democracy was
flexible enough to permit genuine political participation as well as
significant social control of economic institutions.
However, without the concurrent expansion of labor unions and
economic cooperatives, a socialist control of the state apparatus alone
would not be enough to bring about a perfectly egalitarian society. Still,
the democratic legitimacy emanating from fair, comprehensive elections
would give the state a major role in mediating class conflict and regulating
disruptive forms of free-market competition. Revolution was not "inevi-
table" because class conflicts were not irreconcilable. Social democracy,
understood as a "people's party," adhering to democratic reformism and
willing to entertain alliances wirh other liberal-democratic parties, could
spearhead the creation of a "socialist republic." The political institutions
of such a state would implement legally binding rules for a more just
distribution of the social product and the gradual elimination of surviving
political and economic privileges of the bourgeoisie.55 Thus, without the
pernicious social dislocations brought about by revolutionary upheavals,
modern, complex societies - including the German authoritarian-capital-
ist system - could slowly grow into a democratic socialism. This
"evolutionary vision," in a nutshell, constituted the core of Bernstein's
liberal socialism.
In summary, then, we can say that Bernstein's return to Lange's
epistemology led to his idealist reinterpretation of historical materialism
and his critique of Marx's labor theory of value, which, in turn, formed the
theoretical foundation for his pluralist theory of state. The latter allowed
him to not only contest Marx's dichotomy between liberalism and
53
See Freudenthal, "Otto Neurath: From Authoritarian Liberalism to Empiricism," in
Dascal and Griingard, Knowledge and Politics, pp. 218-219. My discussion in this chapter
owes much to the excellent contributions of Freudenthal, Himmelmann, and Coletti.
54
Bernstein, "Zum Thema Socialliberalismus und Collectivismus," p. 183.
55
PS, pp. 143-144; Sozialismus Einst und Jetzt, pp. 59-90.
134 Vision
socialism but arrive at a "constructive" theoretical alternative- evolution-
ary socialism. Hence, before turning to a more detailed discussion of
Bernstein's theory of socialist transformation, we must closely examine
the theoretical link between Bernstein's liberal political framework and his
understanding of socialism.

Socialism and liberalism

If, as pointed out in Engels' influential 1884 study, The Origin of the
Familyy Private Property, and the State> the capitalist state was merely an
epiphenomenal response to the necessity of containing class conflicts and
maintaining the repressive order of the ruling bourgeoisie, orthodox
Marxists were indeed right in their assessment that liberalism and
socialism were inherently antagonistic.56 To be fair, however, we must
note that both Marx and Engels wholeheartedly supported liberal political
movements for representative and responsible government in so far as
they opposed established monarchical systems or the remains of a feudal
social order. There is no reason to think that the array of democratic rights
they endorsed in 1848 was merely tactical. But the political forms of
representative democracy could only be supported as transitional goals on
the way to socialism and could not be constitutive of "socialist democ-
racy" itself. Liberals were simply incapable of living up to the radical
"democratic rights" they espoused because their political institutions
were based upon the preservation of private property and capitalism.
Hence, Marx and Engels regarded liberal democracy as a whole as
insufficient to remedy the economic causes of the "social question."57
Governments would always turn repressive in order to protect large-scale
property and the inequality that the economic system necessarily gener-
ated. Indeed, Marx and Engels could point to a number of historical
examples that validated their analysis: French "liberals" who didn't act to
defend popular suffrage and democratic practice in parliament against
Louis Bonaparte, and German "liberals" who voted with Conservatives
in favor of the anti-socialist laws.
Luxemburg expressed these sentiments when she argued that Be-
rnstein's rejection of Marx's labor theory of value, combined with his
bourgeois views on the nature of society, had transformed socialism into a
"variety of liberalism," thereby depriving the "socialist movement (gen-
erally) of its class character, and consequently of its historic content."58
Subsequent generations of Marxist thinkers followed in her footsteps by
56
Kautsky, Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm, p. 173.
57
See Carver, Friedrich Engels, p. 173.
58
Luxemburg, Reform and Revolution?, p. 57.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 135
interpreting Bernstein's obvious liberal inclinations as exerting a "perni-
cious influence" on the labor movement as a whole.59
But "socialist democracy/' in a Marxist sense, only conflicts with
"liberalism" if one accepts Kautsky's and Luxemburg's inveterate
identification of "true socialism" with "Marxism." This study, however,
suggests that Bernstein's crucial contribution to socialist theory lies in
his intellectual quest for the ideological foundation of a liberal, or
evolutionary, socialism that deviates from Marxist doctrine in funda-
mental ways. Bernstein consciously evolved liberalism (with its crucial
concepts of popular sovereignty, the rule of law, religious tolerance,
rational redress of grievances, and the primacy of the individual), and
socialism (understood as the democratic accountability of political and
economic institutions/representatives and distributive justice), into a
new synthesis: the prototype of a "modern" understanding of social
democracy.60 Seeking to find common ground in both traditions, Be-
rnstein abandoned Marx's economically based critique of bourgeois
political and judicial institutions as systematically and exclusively serving
ruling-class interests:
As an expression of social relations, the political program of The Communist
Manifesto is that of a conquerer who wants to incorporate the province, torn away
from the enemy, as fast as possible. There are no common interests, no obligations
between victor and vanquished; there are two absolute, separated camps and
between its members there are no common threads whatsoever.61

Indeed, Bernstein did not share Marx's scorn for bourgeois "civil
society" and its egoistic, "so-called rights of man," which reflected the
fundamental capitalist disjunctive between the alienated individual and
59
Luxemburg, in ibid., called Bernstein a "simpleton" with a "poor understanding of
Marxian economics;" a man whose theory amounted to a "passive betrayal" of the
working class (pp. 39, 53). See also Alex Callinicos, Marxism and Philosophy (New York:
Oxford UP, 1985), pp. 65-66.
60
This understanding is most clearly revealed in the SPD's 1959 Godesberg Program:
"Socialism is a continuous task - to fight for freedom and justice, to keep those values, and
to persevere with them . . . Socialism is realized only through democracy, democracy is
fulfilled through socialism." Cited in Wolfgang Abendroth, Aufstieg und Krise der
deutschen Sozialdemokratie (Frankfurt: Stimme Verlag, 1964), pp. 129-130. Although
Kolakowski (1978), noticing this synthesis, calls Bernstein's revisionism a "socialist
variant of liberalism" (p. 114), nobody has properly articulated the theoretical and
political components of Bernstein's evolutionary socialism. See, for example, Meyer,
Bernstein's konstruktiver Sozialismus; Heimann, Texte zum Revisionisms; Lehnert, Reform
und Revolution in den Strategiediskussionen der klassischen Sozialdemokratie; Steinberg,
Sozialismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie; Grebing, Der Revisionismus: Von Bernstein bis
zum "Prager Fruhling"; Steenson, KarlKautsky 1854-1938; and Pachter, "The Ambigu-
ous Legacy of Eduard Bernstein," in Bronner, Socialism in History: The Political Essays of
Henry Pachter, pp. 256-283.
61
Bernstein, Von der Sekte zur Partei, p. 9.
136 Vision
the community.62 Instead, "evolutionary socialism" was rooted in its
departure from the sphere of production and the corresponding Marxist
reduction of man to a homofaber, whose "human nature" was determined
by his particular mode of productive activity.63 As pointed out in the
previous chapter, Bernstein's empiricist analysis of society tended to treat
socioeconomic entities as though they were indisputable entities, the
"givens" of objective reality. As a result, he viewed personal rights as
moral entitlements based on abstractly defined human qualities and
capacities. This meant, to put it in less favorable Marxist terms, to confuse
"bourgeois man" with "man-in-general."
While he acknowledged the importance of Marx's famous "Sixth
Thesis" on Feuerbach, which characterized humans as a fluid "ensemble
of social relationships," Bernstein nonetheless insisted that the social
environment did not fully determine "human nature."64 Obviously, he
was referring to transhistorical moral standards inherent in "reason" itself
- a rational morality of Recht traditionally expressed in the natural law
concepts of liberal thinkers from Locke to Kant and Mill. In fact, Bernstein
did not hesitate to praise the historically progressive role of natural law
precepts as providing a rational check on limited positive law, thus
inspiring generations of "radical spirits to protest against the domination
of tradition with its antiquated social institutions, political conditions, and
ideology."65 This moral foundation in Recht provided him with a
conceptual framework to encourage his fellow socialists to drop their
dogmatic Marxist slogans denouncing appeals to human rights as signs of
"false consciousness" and defeatism, and to frame their political demands
within a rights-centered discourse of liberal democracy instead.66 Success-
fully appropriating the liberal language of the radical citoyen of the French
Revolution for social democracy, Bernstein clearly subscribed to a
non-Marxist conception of "civil society," which, for him, meant less an
alienated sphere of self-centered individuals than a voluntary association
of individuals according to the ethos of the Enlightenment.
Regretting that the German word "burgerlich" did not allow for the
crucial distinction between the progressive "citoyen" and the conservative
62
Marx's seminal texts in this regard are: On the Jewish Question, Contribution to the Critique
ofHegeVs Philosophy of Right, The German Ideology, and Critique of the Gotha Program, all in
Robert C. Tucker, ed. The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton,
1978).
63
See also Freudenthal, "Otto Neurath: From Authoritarian Liberalism to Empiricism," in
Dascal and Griingard, Knowledge and Politics, pp. 219-221.
64
PS, p. 17.
65
Bernstein, "Die naturrechtliche Begriindung des Sozialism," in Der Sozialismus Einst und
Jetzt,p. 21.
66
Eduard Bernstein, Parlamentarismus und Sozialdemokratie (Berlin: Pan, 1906), p. 13; and
PS, pp. 149, 160.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 137
"bourgeois," Bernstein insisted that it was only the property owners' claim
for special privileges vis-a-vis the state that made them "bourgeois" in
their ideological outlook. 67 Consequently., he showed great sympathy for
Friedrich Schiller's optimism regarding the possible transformation of
Germany's burgerliche Gesellschaft into a vibrant public sphere, whose
paramount task it was to restore an ethical society which would protect the
moral and economic autonomy of individuals from the atomizing and
dehumanizing tendencies of bourgeois capitalism.^ However, this did not
mean that Bernstein failed to recognize the bourgeoisie's ideological and
social hold on civil society. Still, the permeation of modern society by
bourgeois culture only highlighted the critical role of civil society in the
political project of social democracy, which aimed at imbuing political
associations with democratic principles and, ultimately, at transforming
public institutions. Bernstein felt that the working class should utilize the
critical potential of civil society by claiming the "public sphere" as a forum
for the open exchange of emancipatory ideas amongst equal citizens.
As the first prominent spokesman of modern social democracy, Bern-
stein reversed Marx's romantic holism, which looked down upon civil
society as the French Revolution's short-lived experiment in political
emancipation. For Bernstein, civil society could not be reduced to selfish,
independent individuals, released from their communal obligations and
left to their egotistical wishes and desires:
No one thinks of destroying civil society as a community ordered in a civilized way.
Quite to the contrary, Social Democracy does not want to break up civil society
and make all its members proletarians together; rather, it ceaselessly labors to raise
the worker from the social position of a proletarian to that of a citizen and thus
make citizenship universal. It does not want to replace civil society with a
proletarian society but a capitalist order of society with a socialist one.69
Bernstein's notion of creating an equal partnership of all citoyens in a
commonwealth within a socialist (i.e., redistributive) framework required
him to lower the standards of Marx's totalistic demands for "human
emancipation" and a rational control of production. Settling for the more
modest role of mediator between differing systems of thought, and
remaining loyal to the liberal enterprise of "political emancipation,"
Bernstein's evolutionary socialism approached the humanist vision of
Enlightenment thinkers like Kant and Schiller, who argued that the
existence of civil society and abstract human rights protected individual
67
Eduard Bernstein, "Randbemerkungen," in SM 13 (1909), p. 883; and PS, p . 146.
68
Friedrich von Schiller, Sdmtliche Werke: Sdkular Ausgabe, vol. V (Berlin: Cotta, 1904), p.
593. For a discussion on Schiller and modernity, see Jiirgen Habermas, Derphilosophische
Diskurs der Moderne (Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1985), pp. 59-65.
69
PS, p. 146.
138 Vision
liberty institutionalized as the liberal distinction between private and
public. Most of all, Bernstein's approach liberated the political subject
from the smothering objectivity of Marx's historicism, thus encouraging
individual responsibility and permanent self-criticism as the springs for a
socialist action understood as the never-ending, "constructive" task of
transforming political and socioeconomic structures within the frame-
work of liberal democracy.70
Like the British "New Liberals/' Bernstein understood individual
liberty not "in the metaphysical sense dreamed of by the anarchists - that
is, free from all duties toward the community - but free from any
economic compulsion in [one's] actions and choice of vocation."71
Defining freedom as the "highest possible degree of individual self-
determination," he supported legal equality and equality of opportunity
as the organizing principles for the social implementation of liberty. At the
same time, however, he firmly rejected "communist" demands for
absolute equality as "abstract" and even dangerous: "Even if we cherish
equality as our social principle, we cannot posit it as the ethical goal of
human development, for it represents a desired social objective only when
applied to certain cases. Or, to put it differently: equality is a sporadic
human ideal; freedom, however, is an eternal one."72
Applied to the concrete politics of the labor movement, Bernstein's
primacy of liberty translated as an ethical appeal to workers' solidarity.
The extension of their civil rights and political and economic forms of
self-determination were only possible through the institutionalization of
effective workers' organizations.
For Social Democracy, the defense of civil liberty has always taken precedence
over the fullfilment of any economic postulate. The aim of all socialist measures,
even of those that outwardly appear to be coercive measures, is the development
and protection of the free personality. A closer examination of such measures
always shows that the coercion in question will increase the sum total of liberty in
society, and will give more freedom over a more extended area than it takes away. For
instance, the legally enforced maximum working day is actually a delimitation of
minimum freedom, a prohibition against selling your freedom for longer than a
certain number of hours daily, and as such it stands, in principle, on the same
ground as the prohibition, accepted by all liberals, against selling oneself
permanently into personal servitude.73
It is hardly surprising that Bernstein ultimately acknowledged socialism as
70
Thomas Meyer (1977) refers to Bernstein's reformist strategy as a "constructive
socialism" aiming to reformulate socialist theory under modern conditions of highly
complex social structures (p. 386).
71
PS, p. 150.
72
Eduard Bernstein, Die Arbeiterbewegung (Frankfurt: Riitten & Loning, 1910), p. 135.
73
PS, pp. 147-148.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 139
the "legitimate heir" to a liberalism defined not in terms of the incomplete
agenda of existing German liberal parties, but as an historical movement
fighting in the name of the universalist principles of the French Revol-
ution, aiming to liberate the citoyen from his dependency on the church,
the repressive state, and the capitalist economy. 74 Bernstein discerned
even in the flawed "bourgeois" version of liberalism an "evolutionary
principle" that was noticeably absent in feudalism: a universalist logic and
a libertarian discourse that provided the basis for the inclusionary
demands of marginalized social groups. 75 If the rising bourgeoisie,
reflected in a vitalized public sphere with its ability to generate critical
debate and popular activity, was able to contest authoritarianism, then the
succeeding progressive social movements led by social democracy could
use the same liberal logic to further extend representative democracy as
well as civil and economic rights.
Nearly everywhere it took force to destroy feudalism with its rigid corporate
institutions. The liberal institutions of modern society differ from these precisely
in being flexible and capable of change and development. They do not need to be
destroyed; they only need to be further developed. For that we require organiz-
ation and energetic action, but not necessarily a revolutionary dictatorship.76
Yet, this benign vision did not forestall Bernstein's strong disapproval of
classical liberals who sought to limit citizenship to members of the first
three estates. Referring to them as "destroyers of solidarity and commu-
nity," he attacked their "phoney universalism" as nothing more than an
illiberal defense of existing political privilege and economic inequality.77
In order to evolve according to its own core principles, traditional liberal
theory had to be "modernized," that is, complemented with the principles
of solidarity and distributive justice, which, under mature capitalism,
found its most powerful objective expression in the demands of working
class.78 Organized around the ideals of cooperation, liberty, and distribu-
tive justice, the labor movement was therefore the logical successor of
classical liberalism.79
Derived from the Latin word socius (equal associate), "socialism"
meant for Bernstein "organized liberalism." 80 Socialism "evolved" from
liberalism in accordance with the principle of cooperation, offering its
"equally associated" members the same right in participating in socially
Ibid.
5
Bernstein to Bebel (October 20, 1898) in MS, p. 326; and PS, p. 150.
Ibid., p. 158.
Bernstein, "Hat der Liberalismus eine Zukunft in Deutschland?", Bernstein A, El 12; and
PS, p. 148.
Ibid.
9
Bernstein, Wesen und Aussichten des burgerlichen Radikalismus, pp. 42^15.
10
PS, p. 150.
140 Vision
consequential decision-making processes.81 This definition contains the
essence of Bernstein's evolutionary socialism understood as a worker-led
movement pervaded by humanitarian ethics, objectivity and scientific
openness, and reliance on principles of legality which defended individual
liberty against oppressive social conditions and institutions.82 Far from
needing to be destroyed, liberal democracy actually represented the
indispensable foundation of the socialist political project towards extend-
ing political and economic democracy: "[I]n the last instance, for me,
socialism means democracy, self-administration."83

The core of the socialist project: extending political

and economic democracy
Opting for a reformist gradualism as the appropriate strategy for modern
social democracy, Bernstein suggested that socialism should not be
understood as a theoretically rigid scheme attached to the Utopian vision
of a total transformation of bourgeois society: "Our politics must be
geared toward achieving political rights through the consequent and
systematic application of social democratic reform policies."84 He con-
sidered large-scale revolutions no longer an option in highly complex
European societies. The modern state could not, as Lenin would later
insist, simply be "smashed" without hampering the healthy development
of all classes, and especially that of the working class.85 As the guiding
political maxim of social democracy, Bernstein suggested the "implemen-
tation of the most thorough reforms possible under given circumstan-
ces."86
The evolutionary process of political and social emancipation had to go
hand in hand with a "specific degree of social development in economic,
political, and other cultural regards, and, consequently, with the specific
needs and possibilities of the working class."87 For Bernstein, the
development of social democracy itself reflected the gradual political
81
Bernstein, "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 65.
82
Eduard Bernstein, Parliamentarismus und Sozialdemokratie (Berlin: Pan, 1906), p. 13.
83
Bernstein to Kautsky (February 20, 1898), Kautsky Archive, IISH, DV432; and PS, p.
155.
84
Eduard Bernstein, "Zum Reformismus," in SM 12 (1908), p. 1,404.
85
However, he explicitly referred to the people's "right to revolution" in order to bring
about political democracy (PS, p. 186). This was the reason why, in the 1905 mass-strike
debate, Bernstein sided with the radical left wing of the party, endorsing "illegal means"
like the mass strike as an appropriate tool to foster political democracy. See chapter 7 for
the discussion of the mass strike.
86
Eduard Bernstein, "Grundlinien des sozialdemokratischen Reformismus," in SM 12
(1908), p. 1,517.
87
Bernstein, "Noch etwas zu Endziel und Bewegung," p. 504.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 141
learning experience of the proletariat, maturing in its ongoing struggle for
greater political freedom and economic self-determination.88 While the
political privileges of the Junkers and the bourgeoisie needed to be
abolished as soon as possible, Bernstein insisted that the working class had
to utilize its own electoral potential to determine the pace and extent of the
realization of socialist principles.89 The Marxist notion of the "dictator-
ship of the proletariat" was anathema for Bernstein, for it completely
disregarded the growing social complexity of modern society, which
limited socialist strategy to the gradual and constructive replacement of
parts of the capitalist system with democratic structures corresponding to
the socialist principle of cooperation.90
But how did Bernstein respond to the charge that his evolutionary
socialism represented just another "utopian" scheme? Firstly, he argued
that the socioeconomic privileges of the ruling classes no longer deter-
mined the decision-making processes of the modern state to the extent
they did only a few decades before. Secondly, he maintained that genuine
democratic reforms were already successfully advanced in a "legal"
manner by the three main branches of the labor movement: its nationally
and locally elected representatives, labor unions, and its cooperative
associations. No doubt, Bernstein was extremely interested in comple-
menting his democratic theory with concrete political proposals. Evol-
utionary socialism translated politically into the continuous creation of
legal frameworks with democratic legitimacy, the partial social regulation
of production in the form of economic plans, and the maximization of
production and general welfare through an extensive network of public
administration and voluntary associations.91
Thirdly, Bernstein argued that the old antagonistic tactics of simply
using the Reichstag for public expression of protest had long passed.
Bernstein felt that a more positive attitude toward parliamentarianism was
indeed warranted by the actual political situation in Germany.92 Though
he was keenly aware of his country's political backwardness, he nonethe-
less rejected the orthodox Marxist notion that the "evolutionary road" in
Germany was permanently blocked or bound to hit a systemic barrier.
After all, a modest case could be made that the democratic demands of the
SPD and the trade unions were increasing the pressure on the government
to permit the transformation of the Reichstag "from the propertied upper
88
Bernstein, "Vom deutschen Arbeiter einst und jetzt," pp. 175-184.
89
Bernstein, Wie eine Revolution zugrunde ging, p. 13.
90
Bernstein, "Zum Reformismus," p. 1,405.
91
Bernstein, "Was ist Sozialismus?," in Heimann, Bin revisionistisches Sozialismusbild, p.
163.
92
Bernstein, Von der Sekte zur Partei, p. 16; and Bernstein, Parlamentarismus und Sozial-
demokratie, p. 4 1 .
142 Vision
class organ of domination to the authorized representative of the nation's
productive masses - from an exclusivist discussion club to working
body."93 It was less clear, however, whether such pressure necessarily
translated into democratic change.
The weakness in Bernstein's unilinear model of an "evolutionary logic
toward democracy" inherent in liberalism was its failure to grasp that
reformist gradualism and revolution did not always exclude each other,
but, as in the case of the 1918-19 German Revolution, sometimes even
complemented each other. Granted, Bernstein conceded that parliaments
were neither "perfect institutions" nor "the sole determining element
toward greater democratization," but he still placed too much trust in the
weak Wilhelmine parliamentarian system as the crucial political and
educational tool for the working class.94
Deeply influenced by the history of British parliamentarianism, Be-
rnstein regarded the German parliament as constituting an important
political laboratory for the SPD in finding common ground with left-
liberal and centrist parties which also had a "strong interest" in the
struggle against the rule of "plutocratic feudalism."95 While occurring in
England with certain regularity, such progressive alliances almost never
materialized in Wilhelmine Germany.96 As the following chapters will
show, Bernstein became painfully aware of the fact that it was not only the
nationalist-conservative attitude of the German liberal parties that made
such large-scale coalitions impossible, but also his own party's rigid
pursuit of an oppositional "politics of splendid isolation." While interna-
tional workers' congresses in Paris and Amsterdam rejected alliances
between socialist and bourgeois parties in principle, Bernstein kept
warning his party that, once it had made a binding decision in favor of
democratic participation, it ought to follow parliamentary rules with their
logic of political bargaining and compromise:
Despite the existence of vehement political struggles and sharp economic divisions
between political parties, it would be a mistake to rigidly separate parties or classes
by "Chinese Walls." The rapid changes in contemporary society clearly discour-
age the use of such rigid dichotomies. In reality, we can observe a constant decline
of the old, and the rise of new groups within classes, as well as changes in the
relationship of parties to each other.97
Drawing on the past historical experience of the German labor move-
93
Bernstein, "Zur Frage des neuen Parteiprogramms der Sozialdemokratischen Partei
Deutschlands," in Das Program der Sozialdemokratie (Berlin: Dietz, 1920), p. 30.
94
Eduard Bernstein, "Vom Wert des Parlamentarismus," in SM 8 (1904), p. 427.
95
Bernstein, Parliamentarismus und Sozialdemokratie•, p. 53.
96
For an excellent account of the failed attempt to create such a "grand bloc," see Heckart,
From Basserman to Bebel.
97
Bernstein, "Randbemerkungen," p. 884.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 143
merit, Kautsky and Luxemburg were rightfully skeptical of the efficacy of a
parliamentary road to a "socialist republic."98 It took indeed a big leap of
faith to warm up to Bernstein's optimistic conviction that the rudimentary
liberal framework existing in the Empire was flexible enough to accommo-
date a democratic development without revolutionary violence. It was one
thing to emphasize the commitment to parliamentary activity as the
proper instrument to advance liberal reforms, but it was quite another to
experience the powerlessness of the Reichstag on a daily basis. Un-
doubtedly, the issue of the political potential of a consequent reformism in
Germany was one of the main themes separating Bernstein's vision of
evolutionary socialism from orthodox Marxism.
There was agreement, however, that the most pressing demand of the
working class was the achievement of political democracy, which Bern-
stein understood as the self-government of the people under the exclusion
of particular group interests and other forms of class domination:
"Democracy is both means and end. It is a weapon in the struggle for
socialism, and it is the form in which socialism will be realized."99 Rooted
in the political morality of Recht, he insisted that democracy was
"distinguished not by the absence of laws which limit individual rights,
but by the abolition of all laws which limit the universal equality of rights,
the equal right of all."100 In this context, it important to bear in mind that
Bernstein's conception of democracy drew heavily from Kant's and Mill's
models of representative democracy, rejecting the potentially illiberal
blueprints of direct democracy emerging from Rousseau's political
theory. Therefore, the principle of representation, rotation in power, the
right of organized opposition, and the political protection of minorities
assumed central significance in Bernstein's democratic theory.101
But the realization of political democracy in Germany presupposed the
introduction of universal, equal suffrage in all parts of the country, as well
as the accountability of national and local government to the electorate.
Echoing Lassalle's warning that, without universal suffrage as its central
goal, the labor movement would merely constitute a "philosophical
school" or "religious sect," Bernstein argued that the reform of electoral
laws would amount to the institutionalization of a "permanent demo-
cratic revolution," which, in the long run, was bound to end the social
subjugation of the working class:
98
Luxemburg correctly interpreted Engels's endorsement of parliamentarianism only as a
temporary socialist strategy for a more timely revolution down the road.
99
PS, pp. 142, 140; and "Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus moglich?," p. 65.
100
PS, pp. 141-142.
101
Eduard Bernstein, "Der sozialistische Begriffder Demokratie," in Sozialdemokratische
Volkerpolitik: Die Sozialdemokratie und die Frage Europa (Leipzig: Verlag Naturwissen-
schaften, 1917), p. 15.
144 Vision
Wherever workers enjoy the full benefits of universal suffrage, they simultaneously
achieve a more mature class consciousness, driving them to pressure the state for
increases in spending in order to fulfill higher social and cultural expectations.
Such workers strongly support demands to socialize monopolistic enterprises . . .
The social impact of universal suffrage . . . has often been underestimated by
prominent socialists.102
In this passage, Bernstein seems to challenge Marx's early discreditation
of universal suffrage as leading to a "misrepresentation of the people" -
claims frequently repeated in the early "Eisenacher days" by Wilhelm
Liebknecht. Having become rather adroit in using selected passages of
Engels' later writings against "orthodox Marxism/' Bernstein begged to
differ: "One could imagine the old society peacefully growing into the new
in those countries where a national assembly represents social power and
is free to implement what it wants, in accordance with the majority of the
people." 103
As a necessary means to accomplish such sweeping electoral reforms,
Bernstein supported both extraparliamentary actions like the "defensive"
mass strike for the achievement of political rights, and the expansion of
workers' "industrial rights" led by the trade unions acting as "the
indispensable organs of democracy." 104 Ignoring orthodox assertions that
revisionist demands for a distinct "socialist theory of trade unions" ran
contrary to a Marxist conception of a party-led socialist movement, he
called upon left intellectuals to rethink the role and task of unionism under
the conditions of advanced capitalism.105
Clearly influenced by the strong union tradition in Britain, Bernstein
accepted Sidney Webb's thesis that trade unions, by virtue of their
sociopolitical position, were extremely well suited to lead the struggle for a
more equitable distribution of profits in production, and thus help "erode
the absolute power of capital and give the worker a direct influence in the
management of industry." 106 Given his bleak assessments regarding the
abolition of the wage system in the foreseeable future, Bernstein felt that
the more realistic task of democratizing the wage-determination process
offered labor unions a large and rewarding field for progressive political
action. 107 In fact, he argued that the full achievement of a fair collective-
bargaining process and genuine workers' co-determination - formulated
102
Bernstein, "Was ist Sozialismus?," p. 158; Eduard Bernstein, "Die neueste Prognose
der sozialen Revolution," in SM 6 (1902), p. 598; and "Vom Parlament und vom
Parlamentarismus," in SM 16 (1912), p. 656.
103
Engels in MEW 22, p. 234.
104
PS, p. 139.
105
Bernstein, "Vorfragen einer Sozialistischen Theorie der Gewerkschaftsbewegung," pp.
839-846.
106
PS, p. 139.
107
Bernstein, "Grundlinien des sozialdemokratischen Reformismus," p. 1,516.
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 145
within the framework of fair labor laws - would come very close to the
actual "democratization of all workshops and factories."108
However, in pursuing these important objectives, the political and
economic branches of the labor movement needed to iron out their
strained relations based on ideological differences. Here Bernstein gras-
ped the necessity for linking the parliamentary form of representation
characteristic of modern liberal democracy with workplace-based forms
of democracy organized at the point of production. Along those lines, he
developed a comprehensive socialist theory of reform designed to facili-
tate a new, more effective working relationship between the party and the
unions: "If we understand the term "parliamentarian" as a method instead
of confining it to the activities of the legislature, then it also characterizes
the union movement which strives for a parliamentarian, and not a
revolutionary implementation of its tasks."109
Though redistributive measures would translate into a higher living
standard for working people, Bernstein advised the party to combine the
struggle against the capitalists' pocketing of high profits in production with
the battle against inordinate profits in trade. To encourage such efforts,
Bernstein emerged as one of the most avid supporters of consumer
cooperatives and regional and local organs of self-government.110 He
viewed the role of economic interest groups among working people as a
dramatic enhancement of the individual's effectiveness in pressuring the
state for effective political participation and economic co-determination.
The large territories and vast populations of modern states make it increasingly
difficult for the individual to get an overall idea of what a state administration
might be expected to achieve . . . If the individual were to confront this vast
community with no intermediary, merely as one unit among a million others, then
democracy would be no more than an empty word. The most perfect electoral
system, the most far-reaching application of the principle of direct legislation,
would, of itself, make very little difference. The will of each individual would be
neutralized by that of other individuals, and the real rulers would be the heads of
the administration, of bureaucracy. Hence the importance of intermediate institu-
tions.111
Ultimately, Bernstein sought to find a workable balance between state
centralism and political and economic decentralization. His guiding idea
108
Bernstein, "Vorfragen einer Sozialistischen Theorie der Gewerkschaftsbewegung," p.
845; and Bernstein, "Die nachsten moglichen Verwirklichungen des Sozialismus," in
Der Sozialismus Einst undjetzt, pp. 126-144.
109
Eduard Bernstein, "Das vergrabene Pfund und die Taktik der Sozialdemokratie," in SM
10 (1906), p. 294. See also "Vorfragen einer Sozialistischen Theorie der Gewerkschaf-
tsbewegung," p. 841.
110
For a more detailed description of Bernstein's theory of economic cooperatives, see PS,
pp. 110-136.
111
Bernstein, "The Social and Political Significance of Space and Number," in MS, p. 95.
146 Vision
of "democratic socialization" was not tied to a complete take-over of the
economy by the socialist state, but to the dispersion of power combined
with "strong forms of public control, and a strong sense of shared
responsibility." 112 He clearly foresaw the danger of creating a soviet-style
state bureaucracy, for he emphasized that the "bureaucratization of
industry" was "no guarantee for the development of productive for-
ces." 113 Therefore, he predicted a long-term co-existence of political
democracy with a mixed economy:

It [socialism] would be completely mad to burden itself with additional tasks of so

complex a nature as the setting up and controlling of comprehensive state
production centers on a mass scale - quite apart from the fact that only certain
specific branches of production can be run on a national basis . . . Competition
would have to be reckoned with, at least in the transitional period.114

In the end, Bernstein reached a position that echoed many concerns raised
in our contemporary debate on "economic democracy." 115 Ironically, in
the late 1920s these "Bernsteinian economics" resurfaced in the theories
of the Weimar socialist Fritz Naphtali, who urged the expansion of state
control over economic life through both anti-monopoly legislation and
counter-cyclical credit and public investment policy.116 Bernstein's and
Naphtali's blueprints for economic democracy were further developed
during the 1970s as part of a large-scale "Bernstein Renaissance" in
Germany spearheaded by the young faction of "Democratic Socialists" in
theSPD. 1 1 7
The theoretical foundation of these subsequent elaborations on "econ-
112
Eduard Bernstein, Die Sozialisierung der Betriebe (Basel, 1919), p. 19.
113
Bernstein, Der Sozialismus Einst undjetzt, p. 135.
114
Bernstein, "Critical Interlude," in MS, pp. 218-219.
115
See, for example, Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Economic Democracy (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1985); and Roemer, A Future for Socialism.
116
Fritz Naphtali, Wirtschaftsdemokratie: Ihr Wesen, Weg, und Ziel (Frankfurt: Europaische
Verlagsanstalt, 1977).
117
See, for example, Peter Glotz, Der Weg der Sozialdemokratie: Der historische Auftrag des
Reformismus (Vienna/Munich: Molden, 1975); David W. Morgan, "The Father of
Revisionism Revisited: Eduard Bernstein," in Journal of Modern History 51 (September
1979), pp. 525-532; RobertS. Wistrich, "Back to Bernstein?", in Ewcowwrer 50.6 (1978),
pp. 75-80; Lehnert, Reform und Revolution in den Strategiediskusionen der klassischen
Sozialdemokratie', Grebing, Der Revisionismus: Von Bernstein bis zum "Prager Friihling";
Heimann, "Die Aktualitat Eduard Bernsteins," in Bernstein, Texte zum Revisionismus;
Sven Papcke, Der Revisionismusstreit und die politische Theorie der Reform (Stuttgart: W.
Kohlhammer, 1979); C. Butterwegge, "Der Bernstein-Boom in der SPD. Grundlagen,
Geschichte und Funktionen der gegenwartigen Revisionismus-Renaissance," in Blatter
fur deutsche und Internationale Politik 5 (1978); and the editorial in Der Spiegel (October
17, 1977). See also the special section on the "Bernstein Debates" in Die Neue
Gesellschaft 24.12 (1977), pp. 1,002-1,025; and H. Krehmendahl, "Renaissance des
Revisionismus. Ein Kongress der Friedrich Ebert Stiftung kniipft an das theoretische
Erbe Eduard Bernsteins an," in Vorwdrts (October 6, 1977).
 Evolutionary socialism as "organized liberalism" 147
omic democracy" was Bernstein's conviction that socialism could indeed
be reconciled with the core principles of liberal democracy, including the
right to private property: "We [social democrats] do not abolish private
property, we limit its rights. The total abolition of property is impossi-
ble." 118 As was the case in his theory of political democracy, Bernstein
embedded his vision of economic democracy within a liberal discourse of
rights: "The decisive point is not the fact that property is being acknowl-
edged, but what kind of property is acknowledged and what rights are
connected with property. Protection of acknowledged property is one of
the conditions of a regulated social life and its socially regulated condi-
tions of production. The opposite is not socialism, but anarchism."119
Bernstein's theoretical synthesis of liberalism and socialism understood
as "evolutionary socialism" clearly employed liberal concepts not as
"alien elements" intruding on the doctrinal purity of "real socialism," but
as essential features of any democratic socialism. Unfortunately, the SPD
leadership took an ambivalent, and even hostile position toward his
(re)vision until 1959, when it finally passed the non-Marxist Bad
Godesberg Program. It will be the task of the following chapters to show
why, during his lifetime, Bernstein's quest for evolutionary socialism
remained largely unfulfilled.
118
Bernstein, "Hat der Liberalismus eine Zukunft in Deutschland?," Bernstein A, El 12.
119
Eduard Bernstein, "Zwei politische Programm-Symphonien," in NZ 15.2 (1896/97),
pp. 334-335.
Part 3

Disappointment
 Facing the critics

The campaign of the left

The 1899 publication of Bernstein's The Preconditions of Socialism caused
a predictable uproar among Marxist intellectuals united in their rejection
of the book's "eclectic" theoretical foundations aimed at "the conversion
of social-democratic ideas into bourgeois ones."1 As a clear sign that they
were not planning to relinquish their interpretive monopoly on the
meaning of socialism, orthodox Marxists fiercely defended the teleologi-
cal philosophical framework of Marxist-Hegelianism, making it the
yardstick for judging the "correctness" and "philosophical sophistica-
tion" of any competing socialist conception. By 1900, the term "revi-
sionism" had assumed a clearly pejorative meaning in many socialist
circles.
However, in criticizing Bernstein's alleged "intellectual shallowness,"
the guardians of Marxist orthodoxy soon ran into a number of serious
practical problems. First, there was the question of what ought to be done
to limit the damaging fallout of an ongoing, public discussion on the
"meaning of Marxism," which threatened to unsettle the SPD's "official"
Marxist ideology. Second, how could the party's leaders attack and
discredit Bernstein without offending the bosses of Germany's rising free
trade union movement? Naturally, Bebel was aware of Bernstein's close
ties to the unions and the last thing he wanted was to spread the fires of
discontent even further. Finally, given Bernstein's prominence as one of
Europe's leading socialist thinkers, how could Bebel and Kautsky con-
vince the ordinary party membership of Bernstein's sudden "intellectual
lapse?" After all, until the outbreak of the revisionist controversy,
Bernstein had routinely written in the major party publications on
philosophical themes, problems of political economy, and the history of
the labor movement - usually to the full satisfaction of the leadership. As
late as 1900, Bernstein submitted as one of his last articles for Kautsky's
Neue Zeit a learned book review of Karl Vorlander's edition of Immanuel
1
Georg Lukacs, History and Class-Consciousness, p. 182.

151
152 Disappointment
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - a subject Bernstein supposedly did not
understand.2 Many party functionaries knew that the late "General"
himself had sung the praises of Bernstein's grasp of theoretical matters,
calling him "one of the best of the younger generation/'3 proudly
presenting him and Kautsky as the "true pearls of German social
democracy/'4 and the "most reliable representatives of Marxist theory."5
In fact, Kautsky, too, had repeatedly defended Bernstein's wit, referring
to him as one of the major proponents of "true Marxism." As late as 1897,
Kautsky had sided with his friend against a charge mounted by British
Marxist Belfort Bax, who had accused Bernstein of having "unconscious-
ly ceased to be a social democrat."6
Eventually, Bebel and Kautsky agreed to "contain" the causa Be-
rnstein by affording his revisionist ideas a "safe" and open forum at
national party conferences where Bebel could counterattack with bind-
ing anti-Bernstein resolutions, thereby preventing the uncontrolled
spread of "wild debates" to local party organizations. Although some
prominent party members secretly pressured Bernstein to resign his
SPD membership for the sake of the "movement," Bebel and Kautsky
initially refused to meet Luxemburg's radical demands for his public
expulsion for fear of pushing Bernstein into forming a new party of
"reformist socialism." When Bernstein signalled his firm resolve to
remain in the SPD, Bebel and Kautsky were forced to go full steam
ahead with their potentially self-defeating anti-Bernstein crusade. Bebel
suddenly "confessed" that he had never regarded his former friend as a
man of exceptional intellectual abilities, conveniently "forgetting" that,
less than twenty years before, he had himself recommended his "young,
bright Berliner comrade" to serve as editor-in-chief of the main party
organ. By openly denouncing Bernstein's credentials as a party theorist
and by questioning his political loyalty, Bebel and Kautsky gave other

2
Eduard Bernstein, "Immanuel Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft," in Neue Zeit 18.1
(1899/1900), p. 255-260. For a critique of Bernstein's "neo-Kantianism" by his socialist
contemporaries, see, for example, Wolfgang Heine, "Eduard Bernstein und die politische
Frage der Sozialdemokratie," in SM 3.10 (October 1899), pp. 478-493; George
Plekhanov, "Materialismus oder Kantianismus," in NZ 17.1 (1898-1899), pp. 589-596;
626-632; and Karl Kautsky, "Problematisches gegen wissenschaftlichen Sozialismus," in
NZ 19.3 (1900/1901), pp. 355-364.
3
Engels to Sorge (October 4, 1890) MEW 37, p. 479.
4
Engels to Bebel (June 22, 1885) Bebel BWE, p. 228.
5
Engels BWK, p. 90. See also Engels's remark that "Bebel and Bernstein are the only leaders
who fully grasp the [political] situation" (Engels cited in EB, p. 32).
6
Karl Kautsky, "Was will und kann die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung leisten?" NZ
15.1(1896/97), pp. 269-270. For an excellent account of Kautsky's defense of Bernstein's
theoretical abilities, see Steenson, Karl Kautsky: 1854-1938: Marxism in the Classical Years,
pp. 116-117.
 Facing the critics 153
prominent European social democrats the green light to follow their
example.7
Their plan worked to perfection. Within three years, most Marxist
theorists of some stature had published their own "Anti-Bernstein"
tirades, defending the principles of "scientific socialism" against the
"opportunistic attacks" of the "petty-bourgeois turncoat." A greatly
reduced list of contributors to these early efforts aimed at exorcizing the
spectre of revisionism from European social democracy would include
such prominent names as Ernest Belfort Bax, H. M. Hyndman, the
French socialist leader Jean Jaures, Parvus, George Plekhanov, Karl
Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, V. I. Lenin, the Dutch theorist, Anton
Pannekoek, the Austrian socialist philosopher, Max Adler, and the SPD
historian, Franz Mehring.
Appearing in the form of short essays or book-length monographs, this
polemical avalanche gradually succeeded in undermining Bernstein's
spotless former reputation as a gifted political thinker and deserving heir
to Friedrich Engels. In its place, the orthodox tracts raised an almost
grotesque effigy of Bernstein as a "theoretical simpleton" with a shallow
grasp of philosophical matters and an "inadequate understanding of
Marxian political economy."8 Aimed at saving orthodox Marxism from
the potentially devastating effects of Bernstein's intervention, these early
commentators pieced together a Bernstein portrait which, at least par-
tially, survived until our time.
Kautsky started the onslaught on Bernstein's evolutionary socialism
with his somewhat disappointing Bernstein and the Social Democratic
Program: An Anti-Critique. Seeking to discredit both Bernstein's empirical
findings and his theoretical conclusions, Kautsky made the surprising
claim that Marxism had always officially rejected concepts such as the
thesis of the inevitable collapse of capitalism or a "general theory of
immiseration." For Kautsky, Bernstein was simply battling his own
inventions.9 Altogether ignoring the source of these concepts - The
Communist Manifesto -Kautsky also conveniently overlooked the fact that
official party ideology had persistently fed the working class with catch-
phrases like "necessary collapse" and "inevitable immiseration," thus
presenting the communist demands of 1848 in afin-de-sieclecontext.10
But no essay contributed more to Bernstein's poor reputation than
Rosa Luxemburg's monograph, Reform or Revolution? Lambasting
7
See, for example, Ernest Belfort Bax, "Our German Fabian Convert; or Socialism
According to Bernstein," in MS, pp. 61-65.
8
Luxemburg, Reform and Revolution?', p. 39.
9
Kautsky, Bernstein und das sozialdemokratische Program, p. 42.
10
Kautsky, Das Erfurter Programm, pp. 106, 136.
154 Disappointment
Bernstein for his "poor statistical skills" and his "childish" arguments,
"Red Rosa" shrewdly mixed the quasi-religious, emotive force of Marx's
early writings with her own insightful structuralist explanation of revision-
ism. Employing Marx's method of social analysis against Bernstein's
idealist "heresies," Luxemburg presented revisionism as an "epiph-
enomenal reflection" of the current "opportunism in social democ-
racy."11 In other words, she skillfully portrayed Bernstein's intervention
as the "superstructural effect" of a more profound problem at the
economic base.12 For Luxemburg, Bernstein's revisionism was related to
the old dispute between Marxists and opportunistic Praktiker. Evolution-
ary socialism amounted to nothing more than an unfortunate, but passing
"petty-bourgeois vulgarization of Marxism,"13 caused by the worsening
tensions and contradictions in the capitalist mode of production.
Heightening her structuralist account, Luxemburg asserted that Be-
rnstein, living in British exile, was incapable of judging the political
situation in Germany by simply gazing through his "tinted English
spectacles." Luxemburg thus appropriated the language of Ernest Belfort
Bax, the British Marxist who had made similar claims three years earlier in
the pages of the SDF journal Justice.14 Of course, there was neither
mention that Marx had developed his own theory as the result of a
life-long study of the economic history and conditions in England,15 nor
that Engels had made his well-received comments on the German
political situation from his comfortable house in London. Luxemburg's
wrath proved to be extremely selective, chiding only a particular London
exile for serving as capitalism's "unconscious predestined instrument,"
thereby manifesting the mode "by means of which the rising working class
expresses its momentary weakness."16
In the end, however, Rosa Luxemburg proved to be too politically
sophisticated simply to write off revisionism as an insignificant, short-
lived historical phenomenon. Although she frequently emphasized the
supposedly unoriginal, eclectic character of Bernstein's "groundless
critique," a few less polemical passages clearly reveal her fear that
Bernstein's theory might give the "opportunistic current" in the SPD its
"general theoretical expression; an attempt to elaborate its own theoreti-
cal conditions and to break with scientific socialism."17 In other words,
Luxemburg implicitly acknowledged that Bernstein, even in his early
11
Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution?, pp. 58-59.
12
Ibid., pp. 35-37, 58-60.
13
Ibid., p. 45.
14
Bax, "Our German Fabian Convert; or Socialism According to Bernstein," in MS, p. 64.
15
Friedrich Engels, "Preface" to the English edition of Marx, C I, p. 6.
16
Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution?, p. 62.
17
Ibid., p. 59.
 Facing the critics 155
revisionist phase, went beyond a purely negative project of simply
"deconstructing" Marxism by offering at least the bare outlines of his own
constructive socialist theory.
Though lacking Luxemburg's formal education (she had obtained a
doctorate in political economy from the University of Zurich), Bernstein,
like most leading socialist thinkers of his time, was perfectly capable of
discussing broadly conceived philosophical issues and matters of political
theory in the context of the pressing practical demands of the labor
movement. Obviously, the motive behind the flood of pamphlets and
books that questioned his intellectual ability was not a sudden qualitative
drop in Bernstein's own writings, but their threat to the ideological
authority of "Marxist scriptures." Nonetheless, one must concede that
Bernstein failed to carry his critique to its logical end, completing his break
with Marxism, and perhaps even found a new social-liberal party.18 For a
variety of reasons, he seemed to waver in his criticism in the months
following the publication of The Preconditions of Socialism - a tactic that
often resulted in deliberately vague theoretical formulations.19 Bern-
stein's hesitancy translated into his vexing theoretical oscillation between
rejecting and revising Marxist doctrine, thus making him deserv-
edly vulnerable to harsh judgments regarding his ideological position.
At the 1899 Hannover Party Conference, Bernstein's "heresies"
dominated the proceedings even more than they had the year before.
Moreover, the French "Millerand Affair" added some spice to the
ensuing theoretical debates over the nature of Bernstein's revisionism.
Only a few months preceding the party conference, Alexandre Millerand,
a prominent member of the French Independent Socialist Party, had
decided to join the "bourgeois" cabinet of France's liberal Prime Minister
Waldeck-Rousseau, taking this unprecedented step without seeking prior
consultation with his party's leadership. While a number of French party
leaders and other small reformist workers' groups openly supported
Millerand's move, the anarchist Left and the Jules Guesde's revolutionary
Marxists protested against Millerand's violation of the "basic socialist
tradition," which prohibited any committed socialist from joining a
non-socialist government. Ultimately, the 1900 Paris Congress of the
Second International "resolved" the dilemma by merging Guesde's
demands with the rather vague language drafted by Kautsky, which
permitted exceptions to this rule only under poorly specified conditions
relating to the "protection of the achievements of the working class."
18
See, for example, Eduard Bernstein, "An meine sozialistischen Kritiker," p. 4; and "Der
Marx- Cultus und das Recht der Revision," p. 255.
19
See also Pachter, "The Ambiguous Legacy of Eduard Bernstein," in Bronner, Socialism in
History, p. 258.
156 Disappointment
Eager to avoid a similar conflict in the SPD, Kautsky and Bebel
refrained from raising the "Millerand Case" at the Hannover Conference,
thus foregoing the opportunity to challenge Bernstein's public approval of
the French minister's decision. In his memorable opening speech lasting
more than six hours, Bebel brilliantly displayed his double-pronged
strategy vis-a-vis the lingering "Bernstein Question." Pandering to the
atheoretical Praktiker and a small group of theoretically committed
"revisionists," he spent the first hour extolling the virtues of free speech
and socialist self-criticism. But he soon began to elaborate on the "pitfalls
of reformism," clearly regurgitating Kautsky's arguments designed to
undermine Bernstein's intellectual ability.20 Bebel indicated that any
attempt to rob social democracy of its revolutionary tradition was a blow
to the heart of his own staunch opposition to the existing system. Those
who abandoned "revolution" in favor of "evolution" had allowed
themselves to be coopted by the bourgeoisie and displayed their willing-
ness to compromise with the existing authoritarian state of Kaiser
Wilhelm. To the enthusiastic applause of almost 200 delegates, Bebel
closed his rhetorical tour deforce with a characteristicallyfieryadmonition:
"Let's stick with our goal of [capitalist] expropriation. This we'll never
give up!"21
Bernstein's pending arrest warrant prevented him once again from
defending himself in person. But as in Stuttgart the year before, his
position was well represented by a group of prominent revisionists led by
Eduard David and Heinrich Peus. Both men emphasized the importance
of synchronizing the party's theory and its practice without abandoning
the theoretical and ethical concerns of a committed socialism. According
to David, Bernstein's main contribution was to remind the party of the
fundamental importance of its present-day tasks (Gegenwartsarbeit), its
growing parliamentary activities, and its ethical responsibilities to its
constituency. According to Peus, Bernstein was to be commended for
formulating an evolutionary socialism that might well serve as "a means
for the organic construction of a socialist future."22
In the ensuing confrontations between the two camps which lasted for
almostfivedays, Bernstein's theoretical position was alternately condem-
ned and defended. Ultimately, however, Bebel used his central position in
the party's "old boy network," along with his conciliatory demeanor and
"commonsensical" calls for party unity, to appear as the peacemaker.
Thanking Bernstein for his "bold initiative" and firmly rejecting radical
20
Protokoll iiber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages des Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutsch-
lands, abgehalten in Hannover vom 9-14 Oktober 1899 (Berlin, 1899), pp. 94-127.
21
Ibid., p . 1 2 1 .
22
Ibid., pp. 144, 186.
 Facing the critics 157
calls for his expulsion, Bebel offered a final resolution that affirmed the
Marxist principles of the Erfurt Program. The document also emphasized
the proletarian-class character of the party and rejected any "revisionist"
attempts to turn the SPD into a "social democratic party of reform."23
The measure carried by an overwhelming margin.
In the end, Kautsky and Bebel had achieved a hard-fought victory, but
the war was not yet won. Undeterred, Bernstein would further develop his
revisionist arguments and challenge Kautsky's narrowly interpreted
proletarian Weltanschauung. Ultimately, Kautsky lost his strategic moder-
ation and ask Bernstein to leave the party, since he obviously "never really
understood Marxism."24 A deep personal friendship and remarkable
intellectual kinship of twenty years had come to a bitter end. This was the
moment for which a small number of left-liberals sympathetic to the
workers' cause had waited. Could Bernstein be recruited for a new,
worker-based national-liberal party of reform?

Liberal overtures
Already before the publication of The Preconditions of Socialism, Bernstein
had been inundated with congratulatory letters from left-liberals like the
neo-Kantian philosopher Karl Vorlander who praised his "courageous
initiative." Though disagreeing with Bernstein's epistemology, many
neo-Kantian socialists saw the London exile as a potential ally in their
mounting efforts to replace the party's orthodox Marxist doctrine with
their own ethical brand of socialism based upon Kant's Critical Ideal-
ism.25 Indeed, the powerful surge of neo-Kantian socialism in the first
decades of the new century owed much to Bernstein's revisionist interven-
tion.
Likewise, prominent social-liberal economists like Franz Oppenheimer
began to quote Bernstein in support of their cause, flooding him with
attractive offers for closer intellectual and organizational cooperation.
Politically, Oppenheimer was close to a relatively disorganized group of
small parties collectively called the left-liberals. Theodor Barth, a Bremen
delegate to the Bundesraty and charismatic leader of the most progressive
left liberal party - the Freisinnige Vereinigung (Liberal Association) - had in
the past unsuccessfully called for the formation of a "red" Kartell: a loose
electoral alliance between the left-liberals and the social democrats.26
Indeed, the left-liberals shared with the social democrats their strong
23
Ibid., pp. 244, 294.
24
Kautsky to Adler (May 6, 1901) Adler BW, p. 355.
25
See Steinberg, Sozialismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie, p. 99.
26
Heckart, From Bassermann to Bebel, pp. 28-29.
158 Disappointment
interest in organizing workers and artisans in trade unions., called the
Hirsch-Duncker Gewerkvereine. Though one of the oldest unions in
Germany, the liberal Gewerkvereine were clearly outmuscled in size and
political power by the social democratic "free" trade unions. Moreover,
left-liberal members of the Reichstag frequently voted with the social
democrats against military and colonial bills that failed to benefit their
constituency.
While the political platform of left-liberal parties traditionally attracted
small businessmen, teachers, lawyers, and lower civil servants, their
membership also included traditional opponents of socialism: representa-
tives of large-scale commerce and finance. These members of the German
Grossburgertum (upper bourgeoisie) vigorously opposed the Conserva-
tive/Junker strategy of maintaining political power by turning against
industrialism. In particular, left-liberals emerged as strong critics of
establishing artificial economic measures such as protective tariffs, export
premiums, and agricultural subsidies, which were hurting the commercial
communities in the large northern German cities and small businessmen
in Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, and Oldenburg.27
Aware of their respective parties' common roots in opposing the
authoritarianism and militarism of the Empire, Bernstein at first seemed
to reciprocate Oppenheimer's overtures by explicitly welcoming a stron-
ger emphasis on the "liberal element" in socialism. In fact, he conceded
that some theoretical principles of Oppenheimer's left liberalism were not
in contradiction to social democratic tenets as he understood them.28
However, Bernstein was unwilling to go along with Oppenheimer's
undiluted enthusiasm for economic laissez-faire policies and his neo-
Smithian supposition that the free play of economic competition itself
would eventually bring about both greater national wealth and a more
"cooperative" variant of capitalism. Rejecting the economic extremes of
Oppenheimer's left liberalism, Bernstein's liberal socialism instead stood
for significant state interventionist policies for sizeable sectors of the
economy.29 Ultimately, the two men were unable to overcome their
fundamental philosophical differences on this issue, and their correspon-
dence ceased abruptly.
Friedrich Naumann, the powerful leader of the center-left German
National-Social Association (Nationalsoziale Verein), also showed some
interest in moving the progressive parts of the German bourgeoisie closer
to Bernstein's evolutionary socialism. Greatly influenced by Max Weber,
27
Ibid., pp. 26-27.
28
Eduard Bernstein, "Zum Thema Socialliberalismus und Collectivismus," in SM 4
(1900), p. 183.
29
Ibid., p. 181.
 Facing the critics 159
Naumann emerged as one of the most prominent non-socialist advocates
for the "modernization" and democratization of the Empire. With a
strong background in the Protestant Christian Social movement for social
reform, he was a keen observer and critic of the social dislocation and
economic hardship connected with Germany's rapid process of modern-
ization and industrialization. In his magnum opus, Demokratie und Kaiser-
tum, published in 1900, Naumann had laid out his comprehensive
theoretical vision for challenging the domination of the Conservatives and
affecting a reconciliation between democracy and Empire.30 Noting that
the agriculturally based Junkers were a formidable obstacle in Germany's
"assured" way to global greatness, Naumann put his faith in the growing
"modern" commercial and industrial classes which, he felt, had to be
rallied around an anti-Conservative political agenda. Naumann's innova-
tive political scheme involved combining the forces of liberal nationalism
and democracy in a progressive, class-transcending alliance "From
Basserman to Bebel" - a policy he officially announced at the 1901 party
congress of his Naiionalsozialer Verein.31
However, unlike Barth and other left-liberals, Naumann shared Max
Weber's overriding concern with Weltpolitik: a politics that subordinated
all domestic goals to "national interest" and the increase of Germany's
power on the international stage. Thus, Naumann saw it as his main task
to appeal to the "internationalist" left-liberals and social democrats to
give up their "unrealistic" opposition to a "national" politics, while at the
same time pressuring the center-right national-liberals to ease their
hostility to both the social democrats and a democratic framework for a
future German Reich. And indeed, it appeared as though both parties
were slowly moving in that direction. The national-liberals elected as their
chairman the moderate Ernst Bassermann, who was socially progressive
and tried to reinvoke the grand old liberal tradition of his party. His efforts
were supported by scores of so-called Young Liberal Clubs which sprang
up throughout the country and were led by young, liberal-thinking
activists like Gustav Stresemann.32
Even some social democratic Praktiker appeared to be attracted to
Naumann's ideas: Otto Hue, the powerful leader of the Ruhr area miners'
union, found himself so enthralled with Naumann's arguments in
Demokratie und Kaisertum, that he organized a well-attended lecture tour
through the Ruhr for the author.33 With Bernstein's The Preconditions of
30
Heckart, From Bassermann to Bebel, p. 13.
31
Ibid., pp. 16,22.
32
Ibid., pp. 33-43. See also Karola Bassermann, Ernst Bassermann (Mannheim: Dr Haas,
1919); and J. Alden Nichols, Germany after Bismarck (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP,
1958).
33
Heckart, From Bassermann to Bebel, p. 20.
160 Disappointment
Socialism appearing roughly around the same time as Demokratie und
Kaisertum, Naumann assumed that the full transformation of social
democracy along reformist lines was only a matter of time and interpreted
the unfolding Revisionist Controversy as a clear sign of socialism's
willingness to drop its "old revolutionary phraseology."34 Triumphantly
announcing to his readers that "Bernstein is our farthest advanced post in
the camp of social democracy/' he enthusiastically welcomed Bernstein's
study as the "new political ideal of a democratic Left."35 Sending
Bernstein the galley proofs of his Demokratie und Kaisertum with the polite
request for a favorable review, Naumann saw their correspondence as the
beginning of a new era of cooperation between liberalism and the
reformist camp within social democracy.
There was indeed some reason for Naumann's optimism. Bernstein
shared his advocacy for a closer cooperation between liberals and
socialists in order to achieve various democratic goals, and he had
pressured the social democratic leadership to espouse such a "policy of
cooperation" as a matter of principle. In that sense, Bernstein's evolution-
ary socialism corresponded to a certain degree with Naumann's scheme to
create a "grand bloc" from Bassermann to Bebel. However, the socialist
revisionist clearly disappointed Naumann's Weltpolitik ambitions by
failing to warm up to his nationalist arguments. In his overall critical
review of Demokratie und Kaisertum^ Bernstein condemned Naumann for
his "anglophobia" and brought him up for his lack of understanding of
British trade policy. Disappointed and humiliated, Naumann retreated
and decided to drop Bernstein for the time being.36 But it should be noted
that Bernstein's article was aimed as much against those "revisionists" in
his own party who were using his arguments to justify their nationalistic
ambitions, as it was against Naumann's brand of German nationalism.
By far the most serious attempt to win Bernstein over to the liberal camp
came from Heinrich Braun, a sympathizer with social democracy, and
editor of the influential left-liberal political journals Archiv fur Soziale
Gesetzgebung und Statistik and Centralblatt. Braun hoped that Bernstein's
soft spot for liberalism would finally provide the necessary impetus to a
34
Friedrich Naumann, Demokratie und Kaisertum (Berlin: Hilfe Verlag, 1900), p. 7. For
Naumann's relationship with Max Weber, see Michael Panzer, Der Einfluss Max Webers
auf Friedrich Naumann (Wurzburg: Creator, 1986).
35
Friedrich Naumann's review of Bernstein's The Preconditions of Socialism in Hilfe 5.4
(1899), p. 4. See also Karl Korsch, "The Passing of Marxist Orthodoxy: Bernstein -
Kautsky-Luxemburg-Lenin," in Douglas Kellner, ed. Revolutionary Theory (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1977), p. 176.
36
Eduard Bernstein, "Socialdemokratie und Imperialisms," in SM 4 (1900), pp.
238-251. See also Peter Theiner, Sozialer Liberalismus und deutsche Weltpolitik: Friedrich
Naumann im WilhelminischenDeutschland, 1860-1919 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1983), pp.
102-105.
 Facing the critics 161
37
"far-reaching internal transformation of the [socialist] party." Seeking
to give Bernstein's revisionism a greater forum, Braun contacted the
London exile, unveiling his plan for a new journal which would employ
social-scientific research in analyzing the practical problems of the labor
movement. Hoping his new project would provide the dynamic spark
required to light the fires of a broad-based reformist socialism, Braun
wrote to Bernstein: "It is not only important that you personally speak to
our audience but that a whole current of scientific expression and practical
influence be represented. We must take positions on the problems of the
day,... [hence] the idea of a new journal, in which all the adherents of the
new direction come together."38
When Braun failed to secure the necessary funds for his new project, he
invited Bernstein to contribute to his Archiv on a regular basis in order to
give the publication a "clearer socialist direction." Before Bernstein was
able to come to afinaldecision on this matter, Braun managed to win over
a number of influential left-liberal editors for another project involving the
creation of a social-liberal weekly. As a theoretical "organ of battle," the
paper was designed to help "free social democracy from its rigid Marxist
dogmatism" and contribute to the "great expansion and deepening of
socialist ideas."39 Considering his publication as the crucial bridge
between left-liberal activists and "evolutionary socialists," Braun suc-
ceeded in securing the necessary funds from Charles Hallgarten, a wealthy
sympathizer. Predictably, Bebel and Kautsky strongly criticized Braun's
initiative, while revisionists like Paul Gohre - an influential religious
socialist and regular contributor to the "revisionist" journal Sozialistische
Monatshefte - and Wolfgang Heine promised their support.40
Initially, Bernstein endorsed the project, but upon returning to Ger-
many, he realized that his enthusiasm for Braun and his ideas had been
misguided. Recognizing that Braun's plan was deliberately designed to
enhance intra-party tensions which could lead to a split in the labor
movement, he distanced himself from the proposed project.41 Bernstein's
decision clearly shows that while he was prepared to provide the crucial
theoretical foundation for a liberal-socialist current within social democ-
racy, he was unwilling to play any role in Braun's separatist political
agenda. In the end, the "Braun episode" helped Bernstein to clarify his
own political plans and strengthen his commitment to his new theoretical
37
Braun to Sombart (December 13, 1900) in Julie Braun-Vogelstein, Heinrich Braun
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1967), p. 134.
38
Braun cited in Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the Working Class Mentality in Germany
1887- 1912, pp. 151-152.
39
Braun cited in ibid., p. 152.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
162 Disappointment
role as a revisionist thinker within the confines of the German labor
movement. Disappointed in Bernstein's surprising turnabout, Braun
complained about the latter's "lacking character and insight/' and vowed
to carry his struggle against Marxist orthodoxy straight into the lion's den.
Within a matter of weeks, Braun joined the SPD in the hope of mobilizing
other revisionist intellectuals.42
By 1900, it became clear that the combination of Bernstein's hesitancy
and sense of loyalty to his party had prevented him from fulfilling the
expectations of a small faction of intellectual revisionists who had looked
to him to lead their offensive against the orthodox party leadership. Auer's
assessment of Bernstein's weakness as a political leader and his willingness
to subordinate personal ambitions to party interests, proved to be right on
the mark: "Good OP Ede is a loyal comrade with whom I've fought
shoulder to shoulder; but he surely is no new messiah. As long as he
remains the leader of the so-called 'revisionists' we can all rest in peace, for
he will make sure that they never hit the jackpot."43 Two decades later,
Gustav Mayer, a prominent historian of the German labor movement,
concurred with Auer's semi-facetious observations:
Even in his young years, Bernstein lacked the qualities of a statesman . .. He is too
unpragmatic, too thoughtful; he has never been an homme d'action. He is not a
charismatic speaker of Bebel's or Jaures's caliber who can excite the masses; and
even less does he make afinediplomat who must be a master of hiding his true
intentions.44

Reactions of the bourgeois press

Since the outbreak of the Revisionist Controversy, the bourgeois press
had been feasting delightedly on the public display of the disputes raging
within social democracy. Bernstein's noted 1901 lecture objecting to
"scientific socialism" provided them with even more fodder. Surpassing
all earlier plaudits, Bernstein's lecture received wide coverage in major
conservative and bourgeois newspapers like the Frankfurter Zeitung and
Deutsche Zeitung. Much to his discomfort, Bernstein was portrayed as the
stalwart supporter of non-socialist liberalism and a politics of moderation
which inherently conflicted with the Marxist leadership of the SPD.
Heaping exaggerated praise on Bernstein's political "boldness," these
newspapers succeeded in putting their own ideological spin on his
42
Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the Working Class Mentality in Germany 1887-1912, pp.
152- 156.
43
Protokoll iiber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutsch-
lands, abgehalten zu Dresden vom 13-20 September 1903 (Berlin, 1903), pp. 364-366.
44
Mayer cited in EB, pp. 198-199.
 Facing the critics 163
message. Claiming that he had "shattered the entire foundation of
Marxist theory," and that he was heroically fighting the "non-conciliatory
course charted out by radical SPD leaders," most conservative and
national-liberal journalists deliberately aimed at adding fuel to thefiresof
discontent then raging within the labor movement.45 Bernstein's steadfast
denials and angry disclaimers notwithstanding, such reports did, in fact,
contain a kernel of truth.
On the other hand, Werner Sombart and a number of other academic
"Socialists of the Lectern" derided Bernstein's revisionist theses for their
"commonsensical," "eclectic" philosophical foundations. It seemed that
Sombart was emulating Luxemburg's terminology from the bourgeois
Right: "Opportunist socialism offers very little theory. Indeed, the fact
that it avoids theory altogether represents its most essential trait."46
Confusing Bernstein's evolutionary socialism with the atheoretical refor-
mism of the party Praktiker, Sombart's misjudgment proved nonetheless
to be extremely influential, for it was reiterated in numerous later
assessments, including, most importantly, in Joseph Schumpeter's fa-
mous treatise, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.,47
The bourgeois reviews of Bernstein's writings contributed to the
significant growth of attention to his revisionist ideas within academic
circles. Like their Marxist counterparts, early academic studies of Bern-
stein's political thought in the form of journal articles and doctoral
dissertations focused narrowly on the relationship between revisionism
and Marxist doctrine at the expense of a more systematic presentation of
Bernstein's entire political thought and its relationship to modern political
theory.48 Celebrating what they considered to be the hitherto most
successful attack on revolutionary Marxism from within German social
democracy itself, most academic authors concentrated exclusively on the
political ramifications of Bernstein's Marx critique on the unity of the
labor movement.
When in the course of his botched literary project with Braun, Bernstein
consciously stopped short of pushing his critique to a wholesale rejection
of Marxism, bourgeois "sympathies" for him quickly waned. The great
majority of non-socialist commentators began to look upon him as just
45
Dieter Fricke, "Die Riickkehr Eduard Bernsteins in das Deutsche Reich 1901," in
Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft 22.12 (1974), p . 1345.
46
Werner Sombart, Der Proletarische Sozialismus, vol. I (Jena, 1924), p. 386.
47
Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (London: George Allen &
U n w i n , 1976). Schumpeter, t o o , appropriates L u x e m b u r g ' s analysis by claiming that
"Bernstein did n o t fully u n d e r s t a n d his [Marx's] economic interpretation of history" (p.
347).
48
See, for example, Ernst Giinther, Die revisionistische Bewegung in der deutschen Sozial-
demokratie, Teil I: Die allgemeinen theoretischen Grundlagen (PhD dissertation,
Freiburg/Breisgau, 1905).
164 Disappointment
another, perhaps even more "dangerous," leftist opponent. It slowly
began to dawn on a number of the more thoughtful journalists that
Engels' former right-hand man had not given up on socialist theory at all.
Rather, as they saw it, he had chosen a shrewd double-pronged strategy of
slowly disentangling socialist theory from revolutionary Marxism while
still claiming the "evolutionary legacy" of Marx and Engels. When Robert
Brunhuber, a prominent academic and editor of the center-right Kolnis-
chen Zeitung, attacked Bernstein along these lines, he drew a fierce
response in the form of an impressive series of articles in the Rheinischen
Zeitung, in which Bernstein defended the coherence of his revisionist
stance on the basis of traditional socialist principles. These essays were
later collected and published in a separate monograph, entitled The
Theory and Practice of Modern Social Democracy.49
Nonetheless, the growing suspicion of the bourgeois press was under-
standable, for Bernstein was clearly engaged in the process of laying the
foundations of a new, "liberal" socialism- a potentially more alluring, but
equally threatening theoretical alternative to revolutionary Marxism. 50 In
the minds of many conservative observers, there was a good chance that
Bernstein might succeed in supplying social democracy with the theoreti-
cal foundation for its possible redefinition as a democratic "people's
party," thus extending its electoral appeal beyond narrow class par-
ameters. An astute observation made by a national-liberal German
journalist nicely captures the bourgeoisie's increasingly ambivalent atti-
tude toward Bernstein:

The logical outcome of all that Bernstein stands for should be a break with the
principles of Marxism - the materialist conception of history, the theory of surplus
value, and the principles and strategy of the SPD. However, for understandable
tactical reasons, Bernstein refuses to finish this break by tearing apart the whole
Marxist edifice. Instead, he shrewdly pretends that his theory helps "evolving"
Marxism. In other words, Bernstein ultimately proclaims that it is after all Marx
who reasserts himself against Marx.51

Austin F. Harrison, a liberal contributor to the British Fortnightly Review,

the journal of the British Benthamites, shared the assessment of his
German colleague. In his 1902 article, "Socialism and Bernstein," he
noted, "Bernstein simply criticizes Marxist dogma without necessarily
subverting the whole structure." 52 Harrison's essay represents a typical

49
Eduard Bernstein, Die heutige Sozialdemokratie in Theorie und Praxis (Munich: Birk,
1905).
50
Max Lorenz, "Marx-Bernstein-Kautsky," in Preussische Jahrbucher 96 (1899), p. 344.
51
Ibid., p. 330.
52
Austin Harrison, "Socialism and Bernstein," in Fortnightly Review 71 (1902), p. 137.
 Facing the critics 165
example of the new wave of negative assessments of Bernstein's theoreti-
cal model from bourgeois journalists who had often unwittingly entangled
themselves in the terminology of Bernstein's radical opponents: "Where
Marx is fatalistic, Bernstein is opportunist."53 Moreover, Harrison
developed an argument which was to become a common feature of the
dominant interpretation of Bernstein's evolutionary socialism. Claiming
that Bernstein's important essays on scientific socialism "contained little
that had not already been suggested in his previous work," the British
writer assumed an early closure on Bernstein's contribution to socialist
thought.54 Writing in 1902, Harrison mistakenly considered Bernstein's
theoretical achievements already a thing of the past.
Yet, like Rosa Luxemburg, the British observer could not help but
acknowledge the obvious constructive ramifications emerging from Bern-
stein's attack on Marxist historicism and economic determinism. Indeed,
Harrison referred to Bernstein's theoretical efforts as instrumental in
creating an attractive "vista of purified rational socialism" which ac-
knowledged the role of the individual and the importance of free agency in
the realm of politics.55 Finding Bernstein's "valiant efforts" to combat
Marxist dogmatism "worthwhile," Harrison added that revisionism
might turn out to be just as Utopian in its vision as Marxism. While
Marxism glorified insurrectionary violence, Bernstein's evolutionary
socialism might eventually disintegrate into pure opportunism.56
To his credit, Harrison's conclusion proved to be extremely prophetic.
He managed to touch upon the three fundamental predicaments of
twentieth-century socialist theory which were brought into sharper focus
by Bernstein's new perspective: the faltering Marxist monopoly on the
meaning of socialism; the necessary clarification of the relationship
between liberalism and socialism; and the problem of the instrumentalist
("opportunist") impulse inherent in any reformism.

The return to Germany

At the height of the Revisionist Controversy, Kautsky and Bebel had
terminated Bernstein's position as a regular contributor to Vorwdrts. A few
months later, they succeeded in pressuring him to resign from his post as
London correspondent of Neue Zeit. Deprived of a large portion of his
income, Bernstein briefly contemplated accepting afinanciallyattractive
journalistic position in South Africa, but ultimately decided to remain in
Europe. His perseverence was rewarded soon after in the form of an

53 54 55 56
Ibid., p . 1 2 9 . Ibid., p . 1 3 3 . Ibid., p . 137. Ibid.
166 Disappointment
excellent position with the burgeoning journal., Sozialistische Monatshefte
(The Socialist Monthly), edited by his party comrade Joseph Bloch, an
open sympathizer with the revisionist cause.57 A few years later, Bernstein
expanded his journalistic activities by assuming the position of Berlin
correspondent of the left-liberal London weekly, The Nation.
Bernstein's professional relationship to Sozialistische Monatshefte and its
various "revisionist" contributors, ranging in ideology from "nationalist
socialists" to "ethical socialists," signified the beginning of a new phase in
his intellectual development: the formulation of his "mature" revision-
ism, refined in the course of many years in response to both theoretical
challenges and practical problems arising from the daily business of
observing, organizing, and coordinating the activities of a mass move-
ment. Though not recognized by the SPD as an "official party organ,"
Bloch's journal was widely read by party members and soon surpassed the
circulation of Kautsky's Neue Zeit. Over the next fifteen years, Bernstein
published some of his most important theoretical essays in Sozialistische
Monatshefte. No doubt, Bloch and his staff provided Bernstein with an
appropriate public forum for his political ideas.
Soon after Bernstein joined Sozialistische Monatshefte, his ideological
Wende found its external expression in a dramatic change in his private
life. Paul Nathan, a left-liberal editor, and his old friend, party secretary
Ignaz Auer (who had both worked secretly for years on getting his arrest
warrant repealed), managed to orchestrate Bernstein's return to Ger-
many. Their extensive lobbying efforts finally paid off when German
Chancellor Prince Bernhard von Biilow reluctantly agreed to let Be-
rnstein's arrest warrant lapse in the hope that his return to Germany
would continue to test the organizational strength of the labor movement.
Conservative journalists praised von Billow's shrewd move, and, in
seeking to intensify the SPD's predicament, demanded that Bernstein be
given a teaching post at a major university.58 However, the suggestion that
a "socialist autodidact" should receive preferential treatment so aroused
the wrath of the academic establishment, that serious negotiations
regarding a possible appointment were never initiated. It was not until
after World War I that Bernstein would be invited to give extensive guest
lectures at the University of Berlin.
Having grown deeply attached to their life in England as well as their
57
Sozialistische Monatshefte proclaimed itself "an independent organ for all viewpoints
based on the common ground of socialism." Originating as a periodical of socialist
academics, SM ultimately advanced to become one of the most significant journals of
pre-World War I German social democracy. For a more detailed history of SM, see
Fletcher, Revisionism and Empire; and Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the Working Class
Mentality in Germany, 1887-1912.
58
Helmuth von Gerlach in Welt am Montag (May 20, 1901).
 Facing the critics 167
numerous social acquaintances in London, the first reaction of the
Bernsteins to the "good news" from Germany was "less joy than dismay,
and the subsequent farewell to London was truly grievous to both of
us." 59 Bernstein clearly was of two minds on this issue: on one hand, he
cherished the thought of becoming actively involved in the German labor
movement again, while on the other, he felt a genuine affection for the flair
of late-Victorian Britain. After a lavish farewell dinner organized in
Bernstein's honor by labor leader Ramsay MacDonald, Ede and Gine set
out for an uncertain future in their home country, eventually settling in a
sleepy Berlin suburb.
Although the SPD leadership officially welcomed back their "battle-
tested comrade," Bernstein's new role in the party was far from clear.
After all, he had not been a major player on the domestic scene for over
twenty years. Deprived of his valuable contacts with the major party
publications and shunned by most of his former friends, the fifty-year-
old socialist veteran did not even hold an official position within the
party. What would his future role be? Could he afford to continue his
criticism without facing still more serious sanctions from Bebel and
Kautsky?
One thing was certain: during these first months of the new century,
Bernstein expressed nofixedplans or clear intentions, choosing instead to
adopt a cautious strategy of responding to developments as they unfolded.
And indeed, within two years of his return, Bernstein slipped into his dual
role in the German labor movement: leading revisionist theorist and
elected Reichstag representative.

The practical dimension: the Reichstag representative

Bernstein's first major public appearance in Germany evoked yet another
hostile reaction from the orthodox party leadership. In his above-
mentioned 1901 Berlin lecture, "How Is Scientific Socialism Possible?,"
he addressed a mixed audience comprised of university professors,
students, and members of the interested public.60 As indicated in chapter
4, Bernstein came to the conclusion that, since both socialist theory and
practice were pervaded by speculative idealism, no socialism could claim
to be totally value-free: Marx's and Engels' "scientific socialism" was a
misnomer. A few months later, Bernstein further elaborated on his
position with two crucial rejoinders in Sozialistische Monatshefte to French
59
Bernstein, My Years of Exile, p. 280.
60
The same year also saw the publication of a voluminous collection of his essays, entitled
The Theory and History of Socialism, which included several of his 1896-98 Neue Zeit
essays, as well as a number of new pieces.
168 Disappointment
and German socialist critics of his lecture. Up until the 1920s, Bernstein
would periodically revisit this crucial theme, seeking to connect basic
epistemological questions with political and ethical problems arising from
the practical imperatives of the labor movement.61
Angered by the new outburst of negative publicity stemming from
Bernstein's Berlin lecture, the SPD leadership decided to forestall any
damaging effects to the party's basis. The "Kantian" views expressed in
Bernstein's attack on scientific socialism drew a series of swift condemna-
tions from the cardinals of SPD orthodoxy. At the 1901 Liibeck Party
Congress, for the third time in four years, Bernstein's transgressions
dominated the party's agenda. Though Bebel and Kautsky continued to
defend the purity of Marxist theory, the 1901 proceedings made it
abundantly clear that the party's "revisionist faction" was not only there
to stay, but that it had expanded and subdivided into a number of
diverging currents. For orthodox Marxists, the overriding objective was to
assure effective "damage control" by preventing a further escalation of
divisive theoretical discussions.
This time Bebel ascended to the rostrum only briefly in order to recite a
list of Bernstein's newly committed theoretical "sins," namely exag-
gerated skepticism, one-sided criticism of the SPD while neglecting to
attack the bourgeois "enemy" with equal forcefulness, lack of conceptual
clarity, and "incorrect" exposition of Marxist theory. But overall, the
charges brought against the "arch-revisionist" reflected a clear change in
the party leader's strategy vis-d-vis Bernstein. Merely calling his liberal
revision of socialism "a theory that lacks conceptual clarity" indicates
Bebel's intention to downplay the enormity of Bernstein's new socialist
conception for the sake of party unity. Obviously, Bebel was not interested
in prolonging the debate on Bernstein and Marxist theory; hence, his new
eagerness to move on to less controversial items on the conference agenda.
Exhorting Bernstein to stop his theoretical "nit-picking," Bebel's exas-
peration with the lingering problem of revisionism even expressed itself in
an uncharacteristically anti-Semitic outburst, when he accused Bernstein
of indulging in "long-winded, Talmudic sophistries."62
Countering the charges of Marxist orthodoxy for the first time in
person, Bernstein stubbornly defended his revisionist views in two short
speeches emphasizing the empirical observations underlying his theoreti-
cal convictions. Announcing that he was not suggesting a new party
61
See, for example, Eduard Bernstein, "Ein Vorwort zur Programmrevision," pp. 19-26;
"Allerhand Werttheoretisches," pp. 221-224, 270-274, 367-372, 463-468, 555-559;
"Bildung, Wissenschaft, und Partei," p. 706; "Wissenschaft, Werturteile und Partei,"
pp. 1,407-1,415; and Bernstein, Sozialismus Einst und Jetzt, pp. 11-38.
62
SPD Protokoll, 1901 Lubeck, p. 168.
 Facing the critics 169
strategy, Bernstein pleaded with the party to acknowledge the need for
ideological "modernization" and finally drop Marxist dogmas that had
seen their day. Most of all, he appealed directly to Bebel to let go of a
theory based on fictive economic catastrophies. Adding that "the time
will come when social democracy will be proud of my revisionist
intervention," Bernstein insisted that he had nothing to retract.63 Quo-
ting his friend and mentor Engels, he ended his passionate apologia with
an appeal to the "unalienable" right to free criticism, and urged his
comrades to protect the democratic process of open discussions on all
relevant issues.
As might be expected, many delegates shared Bebel's desire to get
revisionism off the agenda by forging a lasting compromise. In the end,
they placed their trust in Bebel's political experience and his tested
strategy of supporting some autonomy for Marxist theorists while leaving
"politicians" like himself or the Praktiker sufficient leeway for their
political manoeuvering. Seeking to appease both camps, the conference
delegates passed a resolution upholding the "right to criticism" while also
admonishing Bernstein to stop his "one-sided attacks on the party."
Overall, the Liibeck Congress amounted to a revisionist victory of some
sorts: the number of delegates - thirty-one - voting openly against Bebel's
resolution was significantly higher than it had been two years before. As
passed, the "anti-revisionist" documents represented a merely symbolic
rebuke of Bernstein in the interest of party unity. Indeed, the resolutions
were not a punitive vote of censure but a tactical corrective aimed at
accommodating an openly reformist faction that could no longer be
denied its theoretical expression. Still maintaining that he had been
wronged, Bernstein reluctantly accepted the gentle reprimand. Relieved
that this new controversy had been overcome without grave conse-
quences, even some of Bernstein's most vehement opponents rose to
shake his hand. His new intellectual role as the SPD's central theorist of
socialist "revisionism" had been solidified.
Soon after the Congress, Bernstein was suddenly confronted with the
possibility of assuming an important political function. Presented with a
clear sign of his popularity in its more moderate circles, he received two
offers from local party leaders to run for Reichstag representative in their
relatively "safe" socialist electoral districts. Surprised by the speed of
unfolding events and psychologically unprepared for an exhaustive
electoral campaign, Bernstein rejected the honor. But in 1902, when the
premature death of his revisionist comrade Bruno Schonlank created a
vacant seat representing the city of Breslau, the provincial capital of
63
Ibid., pp. 143-145; 179.
170 Disappointment
Silesia, Bernstein accepted the nomination and won a resounding elec-
toral victory that even surprised his enemies.64
Considering that anonymous socialist leaflets distributed during the
primaries were spreading nasty rumors - according to which he was either
a secret monarchist with connections to the British royal family and/or a
bald-faced "national-liberal" fighting for the expansion of the German
Empire - Bernstein's electoral triumph must have been especially sweet.65
His socialist enemies had seriously underestimated his remarkable ability
to develop a strong rapport with local party leaders, trade unions, and the
working-class electorate. For many ordinary SPD voters, a large part of
the appeal of candidates like Bernstein had little to do with their
theoretical work; rather, it lay in Bernstein's non-academic working-class
background. Ordinary workers appreciated the success of a "genuine
proletarian" who, like their hero Bebel, had elevated himself to a leading
position in the party.66
For Bernstein, the time of transition had come to an end. Again firmly
rooted in the German labor movement, he added a significant practical
dimension to his theoretical endeavors, a feat rarely achieved by other
party theorists. Save for two short interruptions, Bernstein served in the
German Reichstag until 1928 as the social democratic representative of
Breslau, and later, Berlin. In addition, he held the non-salaried office of
city councillor in his residential Berlin suburb for a number of years. Soon
advancing to become one of the leading policy experts in the party's
parliamentary Fraktion, Bernstein used his professional banking experi-
ence to specialize in issues of taxation, international trade, foreign affairs,
and constitutional law.67 Over the next ten years, he published several
studies on tax policy and helped popularize his party's blueprint for a more
equitable and responsible tax system.68
As advocated by the German labor movement, such a social democratic
tax and budget policy supported redistributive measures in favor of
drastically lowering direct and indirect taxation on working-class incomes
64
Helmut Neubach, "Von Franz Ziegler bis Eduard Bernstein: Die Vertreter der Stadt
Breslau im Deutschen Reichstag 1871-1918," in Johannes Barmann, Alois Gerlach, and
Ludwig Petty, Geschichtliche Landeskunde, vol. II (Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag, 1969),
pp.322-354.
65
See "1st Eduard Bernstein ein Sozialdemokrat?," in Bernstein A, G75.
66
For the importance of a candidate's working-class background for the Reichstag
elections, see Ignaz Auer's speech at the 1903 Dresden Party Conference, cited in
Bernstein, Ignaz Auer, pp. 66- 67.
67
For a brief summary of Bernstein's parliamentary activities, see Paul Lobe, "Eduard
Bernstein als Breslauer Abgeordneter," in Hirsch, Der "Fabier" Eduard Bernstein, pp.
148-154.
68
E d u a r d Bernstein, Die Neuen Reichsteuern (Berlin: Vorwarts, 1906), a n d Die Steuerpolitik
der Sozialdemokratie (Berlin: Vorwarts, 1914).
 Facing the critics 171
and imposing high tax brackets on top incomes, as well as on other
sizeable revenues emerging from capital gains, property, and inheritance.
In addition, the SPD sought to link taxes to public expenditures, rejecting
exorbitant spending for the military, the growing expenses of the imperial
courts, lavish diplomacy, and state subsidies for certain religious institu-
tions. The party demanded spending increases for public education,
cultural institutions like public museums and theaters, health services for
low-income families, public transportation, and social welfare.69

The revisionist theorist

In addition to his busy parliamentary schedule, Bernstein found time to
inaugurate his own revisionist periodicals, the short-lived Neues Montag-
sblatt (New Monday Paper) and the monthly Dokumente des Sozialismus
(Documents of Socialism). In addition to promoting discussions of
problems in socialist theory, both journals offered their readers rare
historical documents pertaining to the socialist movement, and book
reviews. Although the funds necessary for its continuation ran out in
1905, Dokumente des Sozialismus provided Bernstein with an independent
base for expanding his historical and political studies from his evolution-
ary socialist perspective.
However, the seemingly unending barrage of verbal attacks on the
"evils of revisionism" continued. The assaults came mostly from Kautsky
and more radical comrades like Mehring and Luxemburg, who controlled
major Marxist party organs like Vorwdrts and Sdchsische Arbeiterzeitung.
But Bernstein proved himself to be a worthy combatant. Following the
strategy selected by his late mentor, Friedrich Engels, in Anti-Duhring, he
combined the task of refuting his opponents' arguments with the art of
popularizing his own views. In so doing, Bernstein hoped to achieve at
least three objectives: firstly, he would enlighten potentially sympathetic
readers from both within and without the SPD on the true objectives of an
ethically motivated, evolutionary socialism. Secondly, he hoped to clarify
his significant differences with the allegedly "pro-Bernstein" position of
liberal commentators, thus diffusing charges that he had become a willing
mouthpiece of the bourgeoisie. Thirdly, he would continue to expose the
party's embarrassing theory-practice split, which, despite his opponents'
high-sounding arguments to the contrary, remained an obvious problem.
Thereby, he would prove revisionists to be more in tune with Marx's
proposed "ruthless criticism" than the self-appointed guardians and
apologists of Marxist orthodoxy themselves.
69
Ibid., p. 4, 46-47.
172 Disappointment
From time to time, Bernstein interrupted his exhausting verbal battles
with his opponents to give sufficient attention to producing fine works of
political history. There are but few socialist theorists of Bernstein's caliber
who managed to combine the journalist's talent for creating a compelling
narrative based on personal exprience with a profound analysis of
historical developments. Throughout his long career, Bernstein proved to
be a genuine master of this art. Ten years after his well-reviewed Cromwell
and Communism, he completed his detailed History of the Berlin Labor
Movement, covering its formative period from 1870 to 1905. The three
volumes of this study allow the reader a glimpse into the fascinating social
context of the rising Berlin working-class movement. Rather than losing
himself in details, Bernstein weaves the main historical threads into a
colorful tapestry that reflects a nationalist enthusiasm at the outbreak of
the 1870 Franco-Prussian War powerful enough to engulf large segments
of the proletariat. The study also describes the social and economic
isolation of German Jews and the many "ordinary" episodes of Prussian
anti-Semitism, highlighting in particular the difficult electoral campaigns
of Jewish social democrats. Moreover, it affords the reader an interesting
look into the small villages of the principality of Brandenburg, where, as
late as 1900, the Junkers still ruled in semi-absolutist fashion. Bernstein
details their authoritarian practices, describing, for example, how they
ordered the local police to falsify election results which would have given
the working class a sizeable share of the vote, and then unleashed those
same police to violently break up the ensuing public protests.
In another excellent essay written around this time, entitled "Parlia-
mentarianism and Social Democracy", Bernstein returns to one of his
favorite historical topics: the role of radical artisans' and workers'
organizations in helping to develop European representative democracy
from seventeenth-century England to early-twentieth-century Ger-
many.70 Bernstein's comparative analysis clearly benefits from his long
years in British exile, insightfully pointing out the major obstacles to
electoral reform and effective working-class participation in political
affairs. Analyzing the strong influence of Jacobin-Blanquist revolutionary
strategies on the formation of Marx's thought, he shows how such
expressions of radical insurrectionism constrained the timely develop-
ment of a socialist theory of reform. Bernstein's reflections on this
unfortunate legacy of Jacobinism - at the time firmly ensconced in the
anti-liberal sentiments of many labor leaders - are complemented by a
detailed critical analysis of the main arguments used by revolutionary
Marxists against parliamentarianism.
70
Bernstein, Parlamentarismus und Sozialdemokratie.
 Facing the critics 173
The central theme of Bernstein's theoretical endeavors in the first
decade of the new century, however, was his untiring call for the "official"
adoption of a consciously reformist SPD ideology coupled with a more
conciliatory attitude toward progressive segments of the bourgeoisie. This
"principled reformism" was based on two main ideas. Firstly, Bernstein
rejected revolution as an appropriate strategy because the modern state,
intrinsically interconnected with a highly complex capitalist society, could
not be destroyed without hampering the healthy "evolution" of all classes.
Secondly, he insisted that the pace of social emancipation had to
correspond with the actual socioeconomic development, and material as
well as ethical needs, of the working class. In his view, the industrial
proletariat had to be given time to grow, gradually lifting itself up to
solidarity and self-determination, and thereby infusing capitalist struc-
tures with the socialist "principle of cooperation." Indeed, Bernstein's
ethical theory of reform was deliberately designed to upset the rigidly
dogmatic foundations of Marxist orthodoxy, while at the same time
avoiding the equally dangerous atheoretical instrumentalism of the party
Praktiker. In a number of crucial essays written between 1903 and 1910,
Bernstein expanded on the main principles of his evolutionary socialism,
focusing on concrete practical and strategic problems like the hotly
disputed question of forming progressive coalitions with bourgeois parties
in parliament.71
In his 1905 essay, "Class and Class Struggle," Bernstein returned to an
investigation of the socioeconomic premisses for the formation of such a
liberal-socialist alliance, while also offering important sociological clarifi-
cations of the concept of "class." As early as in the 1879 "Three Star
Article," Bernstein had shown some reluctance in participating in the
party's efforts to turn the industrial proletariat into a metaphysical icon.
Moreover, there were similar ideas in his The Preconditions of Socialism,
claiming that the working class frequently displayed stronger petty-
bourgeois attitudes than their orthodox Marxist defenders would ever
dare to admit.72 In many respects, Bernstein's views on class had the same
pragmatic flavor expressed in the earthy statements of his lifelong friend
and mentor, Ignaz Auer:

Obviously, from close up, the masses look very differentfromwhat a well-meaning
romantic takes them to be. But how can it be otherwise after centuries of
mistreatment under slave holders, feudal domination, and industrial exploitation?
It is the declared purpose of our movement to improve this situation. But whoever
71
See Eduard Bernstein, Der politische Massenstreik und die politische Lage der Sozialdemok-
ratie in Deutschland (Berlin, 1906); Der Streik (Frankfurt: Riitten & Loning, 1906); and
"Politischer Massenstreik und Revolutionsromantik," in SM 10 (1906), pp. 12-20.
72
PS, p. 35.
174 Disappointment
sees this task naively as that of a noble prince who simply has to awaken the
prodigal sleeping beauty called "the people," is gravely mistaken about the task
ahead of us.73
While Bernstein refused to abandon "class" as a critical analytic concept,
his evolutionary "revision" of the Marxist theory of class struggle actually
predates some important insights offered by Max Weber and Robert
Michels a few years later. Reacting against Marx's narrow conceptual
scheme, which reduced the sociological complexity of reality to compre-
hensive terms like "class struggle/' Bernstein claimed that "class/' as a
sociological genus, needed more defining elements than purely economic
categories like the "ownership of the means of production." Observing
the rapid growth of the "middle class," he argued strongly in favor of
including social characteristics like "status," "education," and "pres-
tige" as well. Moreover, he felt that the increasing diversification of the
class structure under modern conditions facilitated a "gradual lifting of
the general cultural level," making class struggles of the future very
different from those of the past. Formulated in a liberal language of rights
and waged in formal political institutions like the legislature and the
courts, "class struggles" themselves would "evolve," becoming less
violent and more "civilized" in character.
At the same time, Bernstein was careful not to turn his evolutionary
socialism into another deterministic Weltanschauung by emphasizing that
there was no absolute guarantee for a steady progressive development,
since unforeseen "social conditions might emerge that could throw us
back into a time of barbarism and struggle."74 Although he reaffirmed the
basic character of the SPD as a "proletarian party," he also emphasized its
potential to transform itself gradually into a more inclusive "people's
party" with an inherent responsibility to welcome all those elements who
acknowledged the social needs of the working class as the crucial red
thread connecting the political demands of social democracy. For Bern-
stein, "class" therefore entailed an ideal component which served as an
organizing principle for all members of society who subscribed to a
socialist ethic. Whoever rejected the universalism expressed in the
concrete demands of the working class should stay outside social democ-
racy.75 Following Bernstein's lead, contemporary political theorist
Stephen Eric Bronner highlights the importance of such a "class ideal," a
"revisionist" notion that is once again receiving new consideration in
current socialist theory.76
73
Auer cited in Bernstein, Ignaz Auer, p. 72.
74
Bernstein, Zur Geschichte und Theorie des Sozialismus III, pp. 50-51.
75
Bernstein, "Hat der Liberalismus eine Zukunft in Deutschland," in Bernstein A, El 12.
76
See, for example, Bronner, Socialism Unbound, pp. 161-168.
 Facing the critics 175
Though ultimately incapable of convincing the party leadership to
endorse the formation of promising temporary coalitions on the state
level, Bernstein's calls for a "consequent reformism" nonetheless began
to take concrete shape in a series of constructive critiques of the theoretical
portion of the 1891 Erfurt Program.77 These efforts culminated in a
well-attended 1909 Amsterdam lecture on the principles of revisionism
whose published version includes a fairly detailed blueprint for a new,
"reformist" party program. Entitled "Guiding Principles for the Theor-
etical Portion of a Social Democratic Party Program," the tract suggests,
among other things, the removal of "unscientific passages" dogmatically
predicting the doom of capitalist society.78 Instead, Bernstein's own draft
defined any party program as merely reflecting the movement's "socialist
ill": i.e., the theoretical expression of the ethical principles and concrete
demands of social democracy.79 Arguing that "revisionism translated into
the political realm means consequent reformism," Bernstein's proposals
represent the blueprint of an evolutionary socialism that consciously
confined the party's programmatic language to the task of linking socialist
ideals with concrete political demands. However, in the decades ahead,
Bernstein's "principled reformism" would fare just as badly as Engels'
scientific-socialist Weltanschauung, which Bernstein had helped to demol-
ish. Increasingly subordinating ethical principles to instrumentalist and
nationalist concerns, German social democrats would begin to lose its
interest in any theoretical blueprint at all.
77
See chapter 7 for more on this topic.
78
Eduard Bernstein, "Der Revisionismus in der Sozialdemokratie," in Heimann, Ein
revisionistisches Sozialismusbild, pp. 91-136.
79
Ibid., p. 132.
 The revisionist debate extended

The lessons of the Dresden Party Conference

The danger of new anti-socialist measures having subsided under the new
chancellor, Prince Bernhard von Biilow, Bernstein's hopes for a genuine
liberalization of German politics were considerably heightened. Mostly,
he continued to rely on his revisionist assumption that, under the
conditions of modern capitalism, the middle classes would grow in
number and complexity. Such development would translate into greater
social wealth and social security, which, in turn, would develop the civic
consciousness of the middle class, making its members more open to
socialist demands for redistribution of the social product and the abolition
of class privilege. At the same time, steady economic growth would
improve the conditions of the working class and lift their educational and
social status. Scores of workers would soon join the expanding lower
middle class to form a "new middle class" whose progressive political
agenda would eventually result in the transformation of Prussian authori-
tarianism.
But Bernstein's evolutionary optimism, based on the belief that the
rising "new middle class" would be more susceptible to social democratic
ideals, was neither to be fulfilled in the context of the Wilhelmine Empire
nor during the fourteen years of the Weimar Republic. Rather, the
growing segments of white-collar workers, state and municipal officials,
and salaried employees tended to be attracted by the nationalistic and
anti-Semitic ideology of the national-liberals, the Catholic Centre Party,
and, ultimately, Hitler's NSDAP. Lily Braun, a socialist party activist
sympathetic to the revisionist cause, prophetically challenged Bernstein's
evolutionism on this issue: "Where are the free-thinking bourgeois
elements who might profitably be turned to good account in a common
struggle for the implementation of democratic demands?"1 Kautsky, too,
continued to regard the chances for a successful formation of a class-
transcending, democratic alliance in the German Empire as very slim.
1
Lily Braun cited in Fletcher, Revisionism and Empire, p. 133.

176
 The revisionist debate extended 177
Yet, ever the social optimist, Bernstein refused to abandon his conviction
that German political forces of democracy would eventually find common
parliamentary strategies.
As he saw it, economic growth, the formation of genuinely left-liberal
bourgeois parties, and the evolutionary logic of parliamentary democracy
were intrinsically connected, pulling Gemany towards liberal democracy.
This overall Gestalt of his evolutionary socialism was also reflected in his
historical studies. With little time to spare from his onerous task as a
Reichstag representative, Bernstein used every spare hour to complete his
cherished literary project on the history of the German labor movement,
From Sect to Party: German Social Democracy Past and Present, the popular
version of his more scholarly volume, The Labor Movement.2 These studies
represent impressive examples of Bernstein's remarkable talents as a
social historian. Emphasizing the German labor movement's role in the
struggle for political and social rights, Bernstein recounted the slow
evolution of social democracy. Starting with the abstract ideology of
small, sectarian labor Utopias that relied upon emancipatory schemes
designed to liberate "humanity" from "wage slavery," he quickly moved
to a discussion of the concrete political objectives of a growing industrial
working class, "not bound to rules passed down by tradition, but
increasingly choosing its own social forms according to the ever-changing
conditions of political and economic life."3
Praising the educational function of parliamentary activity for the
"organic development of a proletarian civic consciousness," Bernstein
indulged in a rather optimistic assessment of the "democratic process" in
the German Empire, an evaluation that recurred two years later in his
extensive historical volume detailing the experience of the German tailors'
movement.4 Some passages in these studies suggest that he was more
concerned with keeping alive his hopes for social progress via the
parliamentary road, than with an accurate description of recalcitrant
Prussian authoritarianism and the political rule of the Junkers. On the
other hand, political and economic conditions did seem to improve in the
first years of the new century. Foremost were the record-breaking results
of the 1903 general elections, in which the SPD captured more than three
million votes and eighty-one seats in the Reichstag. Bernstein read the
elections as an encouraging sign that, even under the repressive conditions
of a military state, the rudimentary liberalism manifest in Germany's
political system could gradually be developed in British fashion.
2
Bernstein, Die Arbeiterbewegung.
3
Bernstein, Von der Sekte zur Partei, p. 5.
4
Bernstein, Die Arbeiterbewegung, p. 169; and Geschichte der deutschen Schneiderbewegung
(Berlin: Verband der Schneider, 1913).
178 Disappointment
Emerging as the second strongest party in the country, the SPD was
entitled to place one of its own in the post of First Vice-President of the
Reichstag, an office that would force the social democrats to abandon
their traditional refusal to pay an official courtesy visit to the emperor.
Bebel, anticipating a favorable proposal from his party's right-wing
faction, made abundantly clear his strong opposition to even such
"symbolic" gestures of socialist "integration" into the authoritarian
German "system." Predictably, Bernstein not only disagreed, but once
again emerged as spokesman for the revisionist dissenters. Insisting that
attending a purely formal ceremony with no political consequences
should not be interpreted as a "glorification of the monarchist principle,"
he went on to compare some aspects of the emperor's status with the office
of a republican president.5 Although he was obviously referring to the
symbolism of representation rather than the representative principle,
Bernstein's arguments could be taken as a call to compromise the SPD's
principled stand for democracy. The ensuing bitter debate over a possible
socialist vice-presidency was another impressive example of Bernstein's
ability to cause "trouble" within the party ranks. This time, however, the
roles were reversed: Bebel refused to separate his principles from political
expediency, while Bernstein, the fervent adherent to Kantian ethics, fell
prey to the shallow instrumentalism of tactical compromise.
Even worse, Bernstein inadvertently emboldened brash Praktiker like
Georg von Vollmar to use his revisionist arguments to further their own
political careers. With an eye on the Bavarian state parliament, Vollmar
proposed that the party also permit the immediate candidacy of social
democrats for all leading offices in state Diets. Refusing to accept Bebel's
guidelines, the feisty Bavarian also demanded an official SPD resolution
in favor of claiming the office of Reichstag president in case of a future
all-out electoral victory. Vollmar's incendiary style, and the considerable
political skills he exhibited in orchestrating support for his position alerted
Bebel to the seriousness of the new conflict. Realizing that revisionism
could no longer be "contained" by focusing on Bernstein alone, he agreed
with Kautsky on the need for a firmer response. It was clear that
revisionisms - ranging from Bernstein's evolutionary socialism to Voll-
mar's atheoretical reformism - had burgeoned into a powerful threat to
orthodox Marxist theory, and thereby to Bebel's and Kautsky's own
leadership positions in the SPD hierarchy. For his part, Kautsky believed
that only a swift and aggressive counterattack led by the charismatic Bebel
himself would stop the further rise of "petty-bourgeois socialism."
Deliberately employing Vollmar's challenge as an opportunity to set a
5
Eduard Bernstein, "Was folgt aus dem Ergebnisder Reichstagswahlen?," in SM 7 (1903),
p. 479.
 The revisionist debate extended 179
warning example for future revisionist incursions, Bebel rose to the
occasion and demanded from his party the unambiguous condemnation
of all forms of revisionism.
Confident that "the tables could be cleared once and for all," he chose
the upcoming 1903 Dresden Party Conference as the ideal forum in which
to deal revisionists a decisive blow. Kautsky, having taken a verbal beating
at the previous party conference from Heine and Bernstein for his
"narrow dogmatism" and his "authoritarian leadership-style as editor of
Neue Zeit,"6 claimed he was "sick and tired of continuing to fight
revisionism for the next five years behind closed doors" and eagerly
awaited Bebel's "clear marching orders."7 Ready to issue those orders,
the party leader opened the Dresden proceedings with unusually blunt
demands for greater ideological conformity. In order to illustrate his case,
Bebel cited "disturbances" caused by various "opportunist" literary
contributions of "revisionist authors" to bourgeois publications. Coming
down hard on the "detached intellectualism" of those "abstract ma-
rauders" who had fallen on "the back of the party," Bebel employed his
battle-tested rhetoric of "proper class origins" in preparation for his
attack on Vollmar's "opportunism."8
Despite a determined fight put up by Bernstein and other revisionist
intellectuals who pleaded for "freedom of expression," Bebel's strategy
evinced its desired effects.9 Most delegates agreed with their leader that
"too much openness" could severely undermine party unity as well as
hurt the SPD's ability to expand its vital working-class base. Scenting total
victory, the agile party leader quickly turned against Bernstein's and
Vollmar's political demands for a possible SPD vice-presidency. To his
surprise, however, Bebel ran into a series of determined defense speeches
led by Vollmar, who minced no words in accusing him and Kautsky of
using the "dictatorial language of fanaticism and authoritarianism," and
of "trampling on the sacred right of freedom of speech and criticism."10
Several delegates verbally supported Vollmar, and the atmosphere in the
conference hall turned suddenly hostile. For the first time since the 1875
Gotha Unification Conference, the party found itself on the brink of a
politically disastrous split.
Counting on his personal reputation in the labor movement, Bebel
6
Protokoll uber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands,
abgehalten zu Miinchen, abgehaltenvom 14-20September 1902 (Berlin, 1902), pp. 121-126.
7
Kautsky cited in EB, p. 92.
8
Bebel quoted in Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the Working-Class Mentality in Germany,
1887-1912, p. 165.
9
See, for example, Georg Bernhard, "Parteimoral," in DieZukunft (January 10,1903), pp.
79-80.
10
Vollmar cited in Protokoll 1903 Dresden Party Conference, pp. 334-339.
180 Disappointment
responded with an emotional appeal for support while at the same time
attacking Bernstein's "bourgeois" language of rights. Now it became clear
why Bebel had opened his remarks with a consideration of "proper class
origins." In their constant appeals for the "right to free expression,"
Bernstein and his revisionist comrades had opened themselves up to the
orthodox Marxist charge that they had deserted "socialist" principles in
favor of "bourgeois" liberalism.11 In the end, Vollmar's speech was not
enough to rally the party behind his proposals. Shamed into a pro forma
affirmation of Bebel's class criteria, most delegates expressed their
support of his leadership and resoundingly approved two separate
resolutions: one condemning future contributions of SPD members to the
bourgeois press without "proper reflection"; the other emphatically
rejecting "the various revisionist strategies to alter our sound and
victorious principle of class struggle."12 On the surface, at least, it seemed
that Bebel and Kautsky had decisively defeated their old nemesis. The
delegates to the Dresden Conference declared the Revisionist Contro-
versy ended; Bernstein's and Vollmar's "heresies" were pronounced
dead. Orthodox Marxists had salvaged the old Erfurt dogma of increasing
class antagonisms while reaffirming their oppositional politics of "splen-
did isolation" - the fundamental rejection of social democratic participa-
tion in any non-socialist government.13 With only eleven delegates
objecting, it was easy for Kautsky to fill various party papers with
triumphant articles about the "final demise" of revisionism.
Encouraged by the results of their "hardline tactics," Kautsky and
Bebel were eager to narrow further the parameters of acceptable dissent,
and thus continued their battle aimed at the systematic isolation of
revisionists.14 For example, they supported the demotion of the promi-
nent neo-Kantian ethical socialist, Kurt Eisner, who, along with some of
his like-minded comrades, was removed from his influential position as
editor of Vorwarts for purely ideological reasons.15 A few years later,
Gerhard Hildebrand, a revisionist expert on international relations,
suffered an even worse fate from Bebel's and Kautsky's internal "party
purge."
Hildebrand had argued that the rapid internationalization of business
and trade was preventing the socialization of the entire production
11
See Schorske, German Social Democracy 1905-1917, p. 25.
12
Protokoll, 1903 Dresden Party Conference, pp. 300-345.
13
Dieter Dowe and Kurt Klotzbach, eds. Programmatische Dokumente der deutschen
Sozialdemokratie (Berlin: Dietz, 1973), pp. 182-183.
14
See John L. Snell, The Democratic Movement in Germany 1789-1914 (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1976), p. 291.
15
SeePierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the Working-Class Mentality in Germany, 1887-1912,
pp. 176-185.
 The revisionist debate extended 181
process. Like Bernstein, Hildebrand foresaw the co-existence of "mixed
forms of economy" for many years to come. Moreover, he publicly
defended Germany's "right to colonies." Publishing the results of his
statistical analysis in various revisionist party papers, he pointed to the
rapid emergence of an intense international struggle over shrinking global
economic resources.16 Championing the interests of the "German
workers" at the expense of the party's "abstract internationalism,"
Hildebrand seemed to subscribe to a new version of Naumann's national-
ist coalition between social democracy and the German bourgeoisie.
Greeted with sharp rebukes from the orthodox party press and lacking
Bernstein's prominent stature, Hildebrand was summarily expelled from
the SPD, after being cited by the Executive Committee for his "flagrant
violation of the party program's principles." Though strongly disapprov-
ing of Hildebrand's ethnonationalism and his vocal support of German
Weltpolitik, Bernstein was unable to suppress his own "liberal" outrage at
the breach of procedural justice and came to Hildebrand's defense. He
chided the party for compromising the most basic demands for openness
in scientific research, and for violating the "cherished principle" of
a broad representation of diverse opinions in the SPD.17 Encouraged
by Bernstein's statement of support, Hildebrand appealed his expulsion
and earned the right to another hearing at the 1912 Chemnitz Party
Conference.
In the meantime, however, after long discussions with his more
orthodox comrades, Bernstein arrived at the conclusion that Hildebrand
had indeed gone beyond the results of his own "scientific analysis" and
was actually disavowing the very socialist ideals that constituted the
partisan core of the international labor movement. True to his method-
ological dualism, which separated "sciencific statements of fact" from
"legitimate party directives to demand from its members the strict
adherence to the ethical ideals of the movement," Bernstein reversed his
opinion on the "Hildebrand Affair" and openly supported the expulsion
verdict of the party court.
However, in these last few years of the Wilhelmine Empire, orthodox
Marxists increasingly found their "ideological victories" being under-
mined by the growing need to tolerate the Praktiker so as to maintain party
unity. As Stanley Pierson has noted, this dilemma ultimately pushed
Marxist doctrine into theoretical exhaustion, giving it a purely "defens-
ive" and "apologetic" function.18 As the labor movement grew, the
16
Gerhard Hildebrand, Sozialistische Aussenpolitik (Jena: Diederichs, 1911).
17
Eduard Bernstein, "Darf Hildebrand ausgeschlossen werden?," in SM 16 (1912), pp.
1,147-1,150.
18
Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the Working-Class Mentality in Germany, p. 227.
182 Disappointment
ideological purity of Kautsky's Marxism had to be sacrificed on the cold
altar of political expediency. Social democracy began to speak in many
different tongues, giving credence to Bebel's complaint that the ideologi-
cal and tactical differences in the party had never been greater.19 The
orthodox rhetoric at the Dresden Party Conference and the "Hildebrand
Affair" notwithstanding, Bernstein's arguments were still alive and the
"Revisionist Controversy" was far from over.

The mass-strike debate

Having established important contacts with the powerful British unions
during his London years, Bernstein did not share some of his comrades'
reflexive suspicion of trade unionists; throughout his career he publicly
acknowledged their pragmatic KJeinarbeit, which, over time, had led to
tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary workers. In addition, he
cherished the trade unionists' organizational framework not only for its
material contributions to the working class, but also for its ability to
"teach democracy" to the proletariat. He was convinced that only their
concrete participation in the political process would prepare workers for
their future by providing them with the practical know-how of economic
and political self-administration.
Though nominally independent, the German "free" trade unions had
always coordinated their political activities with the SPD. Beginning in the
early 1890s, the moderate ideological approach of union leaders, com-
bined with their willingness to put short-term improvements for the
industrial proletariat over long-term goals of transforming the system, had
garnered significant economic concessions from employer organizations
and the government - a policy which had resulted in dramatic increases in
union membership. In the first decade of the new century, the unions
moved even further toward accommodation with the "class enemy," and
the powerful leadership in the "General Commission" began to design a
course of ideological emancipation from the SPD in order to export its
"politics of moderation" to the formulation of the political strategy and
tactics of the entire German labor movement.20
Despite his sympathies for their reformist strategy and his close
connection to their leaders, particularly Adolf von Elm, the chairman of
the Central Union of Consumers' Societies, Bernstein refused to surren-
der his socialist ethics to the burgeoning spirit of union instrumentalism.
19
Protokoll, 1903 Dresden Party Conference, p. 309.
20
See Peter Strutynski, Die Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Marxisten und Revisionisten in der
deutschen Arbeiterbewegung der Jahrhundertwende (Koln: Pahl-Rugenstein, 1976), pp.
254-255.
 The revisionist debate extended 183
His close relationship to the trade unions was sorely tested during the
heated 1905-06 debates in the German labor movement on the appro-
priateness of the political mass strike as a legitimate means of achieving
democratic concessions from the government. These debates marked the
beginning of new factional divisions within the SPD. Proposed by radical
revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg as a gesture of solidarity for the
Russian revolutionaries of 1905, the support or rejection of the "mass
strike" emerged in Germany as the defining criterion separating "radical"
Marxists from their "orthodox" Marxist comrades. Under Kautsky's
theoretical leadership, the latter had previously enlisted Luxemburg and
her radical faction in their own struggle against both Bernstein's revision-
ists and the Praktiker. On the question of the mass strike, however, Bebel
and Kautsky found themselves unable to share common ground with the
radicals on this issue. Ultimately, they staked out a "centrist-orthodox"
position between Luxemburg's radicalism and the moderate stance of the
Praktiker.
It all started with momentous changes in Czarist Russia. Beginning in
1902, a wave of large-scale strikes had hit the industrial centers of
Moscow and St. Petersburg, ultimately resulting in the revolutionary
upheavals of 1905. On January 22, 1905 - "Bloody Sunday" - troops of
Czar Nicholas II opened fire on peaceful marchers, thus setting off long
months of social unrest and radical forms of public protest, including the
creation of the powerful St. Petersburg workers' council under the
leadership of Leon Trotsky. Ultimately the riots were quelled by a
combination of economic exhaustion, political repression, and the Czar's
false promise of allowing the drafting of a progressive constitution.
Backed by his fierce Cossack troops and his largely loyal bureaucratic
state machine, Nicholas II eventually proceeded to dissolve the only
institutional sign of the 1905 revolution - the hastily created, limited
Russian parliament {Duma).
News of the unfolding events in Russia struck the West like a
thunderbolt, crucially influencing the revolutionary strategies of interna-
tional socialism. Suddenly, worn out Marxist revolutionaries who had
seemed to have lost their theoretical edge were given a new lease on life. It
even appeared as though Rosa Luxemburg, Parvus, and Karl Liebknecht
had been right all along in their radical assessments of modern social
development. If even the most repressive regime in Europe could be
fundamentally shaken by large-scale political strikes and economic
boycotts, then these powerful "weapons of the proletariat" might be able
to achieve even greater things in Germany where the proletariat was far
better organized. Initially showing varying degrees of support for the
Russian revolutionaries, Germany's official socialist party papers
184 Disappointment
provided heavy coverage of the events in Russia.21 Various commentators
speculated on the final outcome of the struggle, keeping their readership
in suspense with weekly updates usually obtained second-hand from
liberal Russian journalists. Soon the theoretical discussion on the means
and ends of social revolution broadened into more practical debates on
the political situation in eastern Europe in general, most notably the
long-standing issue of Poland's possible independence from Russia, a
bone of contention between the nationalist Polish Socialist Party and
internationalist Russian Marxist groups.
A staunch internationalist of Polish extraction, Luxemburg immediate-
ly departed for Russia in order to experience first-hand the power and
innovative possibilities of direct proletarian action. In particular, she was
interested in observing the psychological mobilization potential of the
mass strike - a potent weapon that Belgian and Dutch workers had already
tried with mixed success. Luxemburg's letters of the time celebrate the
mass strike as the "fundamental revolutionary form of the proletariat,"
which, she felt, heightened the radical consciousness of the masses
dramatically and could lead to astonishing experiments in workers'
self-government and factory management.22 Witnessing daily manifesta-
tions of "self-contained proletarian sovereignty" strengthened her belief
in the ability of the productive classes to conduct their own political and
economic affairs without their capitalist "masters." Always the acerbic
critic, Luxemburg's observations of the Russian events were frequently
spiced with ironic remarks directed at the SPD bureaucrats at home: "A
quiet heroism and a feeling of solidarity are developing among the masses
which I would very much like to show to my dear Germans."23 Yet, as the
months wore on, Luxemburg herself was forced to eat her words of praise
as she watched an increasingly divided Russian labor movement descend
into a morass of bureaucratic authoritarianism and organizational chaos,
characterized by a lack of genuine democratic leadership.
No wonder, then, that Luxemburg's "dear" German comrades grew
increasingly disillusioned with the Russian model. The cautious voices of
the trade-union leadership began to find a wider audience, emphasizing
that specifically economic issues like acceptable wage contracts and
working hours were far more important for the advancement of the
working class than the radical Utopias being undertaken in industrially
backward countries. Carl Legien, the charismatic Secretary-General of
21
See Steenson, Karl Kautsky 1854-1938, pp. 132-151.
22
Stephen Eric Bronner, ed. The Letters of Rosa Luxemburg, 2nd ed. (Atlantic Highlands, NJ:
Humanities Press, 1993), p. 47.
23
Luxemburg cited in Stephen Eric Bronner, Rosa Luxemburg: A Revolutionaryfor Our Time
(New York: Columbia UP, 1987), p. 56.
 The revisionist debate extended 185
the General Commission, announced as the "official" position of the
German free trade unions the support of "all appropriate political means"
contributing to "a peaceful evolution of society to a higher stage."24 Most
union leaders eagerly followed him in his categorical rejection of mass-
strike tactics for Germany, calling it a sure-fire way to the political
annihilation of the entire labor movement.
Recognizing the strong influence on workers exerted by the trade
unions, the SPD party leadership struggled to play it both ways. Ultimate-
ly, however, it dawned on them that they simply could not afford to
alienate Legien and his organizational network. Even orthodox Marxists
like SPD co-chairman, Paul Singer, counselled against the potential use of
the mass strike for political ends, thus driving Luxemburg's and Lieb-
knecht's radical faction into even greater isolation.25 For the radicals, the
mass strike was a perfect means by which to mobilize the masses; in their
opinion, it was the only realistic way to facilitate a genuine democratiz-
ation of the German state and thereby combat their country's militarism
and imperialism. Repeatedly, radicals rejected Bebel's and Kautsky's
"compromise" - a centrist position which endorsed the use of the mass
strike only "under certain preconditions." Knowing very well that Bebel
had agreed to Legien's request that such "preconditions" were to be
determined only with the full consent of the union leadership, Luxemburg
mockingly pointed out that "Marxists" were colluding with unprincipled
Praktiker whose aim was to make the actualization of the mass strike
impossible. But the trade-union leadership struck back, calling the
radicals "socialist literati" who, foolishly risking the "healthy" expansion
of the labor movement for their own "loony abstractions," had once again
proven that they had "not the slightest idea about the practical impera-
tives of the flesh-and-blood proletariat."26
At the 1905 and 1906 party conferences in Jena and Mannheim, most
delegates went along with Legien's arguments, choosing the "safe" route
of settling the dispute over the mass strike by voting overwhelmingly in
favor of a strategy based on Kautsky's compromise position, which had
been secretly worked out in advance by Legien and Bebel. This decision
solidified the glaring rift between the orthodox Marxist party leadership
and the radicals, while driving the former into the hands of the party
Praktiker and making the SPD even more dependent on the goodwill of
the trade unions. As Gary Steenson has noted, the secrecy surrounding
the SPD-trade union negotiations, as well as the content of the anti-mass-
24
Carl Legien in Protokoll der Verhandlungen des dritten Kongresses der Gezuerkschaften
Deutschlands, abgehalten zu Frankfurt/Main vom 8-13 Mai 1899 (Hamburg, 1899), p. 103.
25
Steenson, Karl Kautsky 1854-1938, p. 140.
26
See Roth, The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany, pp. 278-279; and EB, p. 118.
186 Disappointment
strike agreement itself, clearly signaled the party's growing impulse
toward conservatism, bureaucratization, and hostility to theory.27
While Bernstein, too, supported the SPD leadership in rejecting the use
of the mass strike under current conditions in Germany, he nonetheless
proved to be more radical on this issue than his orthodox comrades
Kautsky and Bebel. One would have expected that the "evolutionary"
language of the unions had appealed to him; yet his position didn'tfitinto
any particular socialist camp but reflected his own tendency to preserve
the best parts of the various models in question. Bernstein endorsed a
"defensive" variant of the mass strike which he felt had to be used
"strategically" by the labor movement to press the government for basic
political rights like the abolition of Prussia's class-based electoral system.
Directly referring to Engels' arguments made in his 1895 "Introduction"
to Marx's Class Struggles in France, Bernstein suggested that where there
remained persistent undemocratic structures of domination, resistant to
any rational discourse and negotiation, "a political strike can achieve what
once had to be achieved by afightbehind the barricades."28 Drawing on
an evolutionary model that was married to the goal of political emancipa-
tion, Bernstein hoped that the threat of a general mass strike, combined
with its short-term tactical use in limited scenarios might serve as a
powerful catalyst for political change in Germany. Moreover, it might be
possible to persuade left-liberal parties and their constituents to join such
strikes as long as it was clear that they were directed at specific liberal goals
such as the reform of the Prussian franchise. Although the struggle for
electoral reform emerged as one of social democracy's defining political
themes in the first years of the twentieth century, most of Bernstein's
comrades did not share his call for stepping up the pressure via the
mass-strike route.
The fact that Bernstein even contemplated the strategical use of the
mass strike under any circumstances drew heavy fire from the party's
entire Praktiker segment, including those revisionists who agreed with
Legien's more "realistic" approach of tactical moderation in the face of
existing power relations in the Empire. As Wolfgang Heine put it, social
democrats had no other alternative but to keep their protests within
"legal" bounds, since a well-maintained German army stood ready to
drown workers in a sea of bullets. Moreover, Heine correctly emphasized
that the government was probably hoping for the outbreak of a mass
strike, and would be thankful to the radical leaders of the proletariat for
giving it an excuse finally to crush the labor movement altogether.29
27
Steenson, Karl Kautsky 1854-1938, p. 149.
28
Eduard Bernstein, "Der Streik als politisches Kampfmittel" in SM 10 (1906), p. 694.
29
Heine cited in EB, pp. 117-118.
 The revisionist debate extended 187
Bernstein responded to Heine's arguments by pointing out that a new
wave of mass demonstrations would not necessarily lead the government
to respond in violent fashion, for the ruling classes, too, had a stake in
maintaining the social peace: "Under certain circumstances we may just
decide to call their bluff; even the Prussians don't fire straight from the
hip!"30
Unwilling to deviate from his endorsement of the mass strike for
democratic reform as a "fundamental socialist principle," Bernstein
showed strong conviction. Indeed, on this issue he sounded more like
Liebknecht than Kautsky. Though he questioned the compatibility of the
1905 Russian conditions with those then existing in Germany, and also
objected to Luxemburg's calls for an "offensive" use of the mass strike, he
nonetheless endorsed the radical faction's demands for greater "revol-
utionaryflexibilityof the party" on the electoral question. For Bernstein,
social democracy could only renounce extra-legal activities like the mass
strike once all political privileges were eliminated.31 As a last resort against
political oppression, and used responsibly within the general framework
of a peaceful evolution of society, the political mass strike was therefore "a
suitable and legitimate means."32 To that end, he explicitly equated the
struggle for electoral reform with the necessary "emancipation of labor
from exploitation."33
Genuine parliamentarianism, resting on universal, equal suffrage., represents in
modern industrial society the most effective tool for implementing profound,
piecemeal reforms without bloodshed . . . Universal, equal suffrage and parlia-
mentary action must be seen as the apex, the most comprehensive form of class
struggle - a permanent organic revolution . .. reflecting a level of cultural
development that corresponds to modern civilization. That is why the political
strike, devoted to securing electoral rights, must be seen as a special instrument.34
Delivering fiery stump speeches before his Breslau constituency, Bern-
stein received standing ovations for defending the "dignity of the worker,"
politically manifested in fair electoral laws which "ought to be protected,
if necessary, with our very lives."35 Moreover, Bernstein felt that the
enormous sacrifices connected with such a painful struggle would
contribute to the education of the proletariat toward assuming moral and
30
Bernstein cited in ibid., p. 115.
31
Bernstein, Die heutige Sozialdemokratie in Theorie und Praxis, p. 48.
32
Eduard Bernstein, Derpolitische Massenstreik und die politische Lage der Sozialdemokratie in
Deutschland (Breslau: Dietz, 1905), p. 17.
33
Eduard Bernstein, "Politischer Massenstreik und Revolutionsromantik," in SM 10
(1906), p. 20.
34
Ibid.
35
Eduard Bernstein cited in Horst Heimann, ed. Texte zum Revisionismus (Bonn-Bad
Godesberg: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1977), p. 162.
188 Disappointment
political leadership positions in a more democratic Germany of the future.
Unlike Luxemburg, however, he wanted to make sure that the argument
for the mass strike would not hinge on what he considered "abstract
concepts" like her "spontaneity of the masses." Reflecting a synthesis of
rational planning and moral enthusiasm, the use of the mass strike
represented a "last resort." In order to circulate his ideas in the party,
Bernstein drafted his "Twelve Principles of the Political Mass Strike,"
affirming his conviction that political demonstrations of such magnitude
had to be subject to both moral conscience and meticulous organization.36
Seen from a philosophical perspective, his qualified support for the
mass strike was anchored in the method of militant civil disobedience on
the basis of a "moral appeal to the consciences of all members of society."
Yet such appeals had to be backed up by various forms of direct action,
used as "an economic weapon for ethical purposes."37 Despite heavy
criticism from orthodox Marxists who ridiculed his "strange politics of
conscience," Bernstein felt unapologetic about situating his endorsement
of the mass strike within his general ethical framework. Designed to
"awaken the proletariat's dormant sense of justice," the transformative
and educational potential of this measure was just as important as its
political objectives.38 Bernstein never meant to reduce the struggle for
electoral reform to a mere government petition. Rather, he emphasized
that existing laws would have to be broken in "this electoral struggle of
paramount meaning for the working class."39 As the debate dragged on,
Bernstein integrated his theoretical position with a historical study of the
development and function of labor strikes.40 Overall, his perspective was
consistent with his characteristic approach of wedding his libertarian-
socialist principles to pragmatic reformist objectives. Predictably, it drew
critiques from all factions: it failed to satisfy the revolutionary fervor of the
radical Marxists; it refused to go along with Kautsky's and Bebel's
objectivist language of scientific socialism; and it struck cautious union
leaders and SPD Praktiker as altogether too dangerous and moralistic.
The hostile reception of Bernstein's views on the mass strike in the labor
movement was complemented by even stronger objections from the
liberal camp. Here Bernstein was forced to learn a bitter lesson on seeing
that the left-liberals were not prepared to use radical means in the struggle
against Prussia's discriminatory franchise laws. With no concrete liberal
support on this issue forthcoming, the existing political order would
36
Ibid., p. 158.
37
Bernstein, "Politischer Massenstreik und Revolutionsromantik," p. 19.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid., p. 20.
40
Bernstein, Der Streik.
 The revisionist debate extended 189
remain almost immune to socialist demands for profound social and
economic reforms. Once again, Bernstein encountered the indispensible
precondition for the achievement of democracy in Germany: evolutionary
socialism, though appealing in its ethical principles, was hardly translat-
able into the harsh political context of the late Wilhelmine Empire without
the creation of a democratic, class-transcending alliance.
If the Kaiser could publicly boast that he had the power to dissolve the
Reichstag at will and have recalcitrant "red" members of parliament
shot on the spot, what else might he be capable of under "Russian"
conditions in Germany provoked by mass strikes? Unlike in England, a
truly democratic "center" of republican, non-socialist forces never
materialized in Wilhelmine Germany - not even on the pressing issue of
electoral reform. Even other disadvantaged groups like the agrarian
classes despised the industrial proletariat for its "loose city morality,"
choosing instead to remain firmly embedded within an authoritarian
social structure organized around "Church, Kaiser, and the German
State."

The threat of nationalism

As the mass-strike debate slowly died down, Bernstein's intellectual
energy was increasingly taken up with another problem that had emerged
in the wake of thefirst"Moroccan Crisis" of 1905: the rise of nationalism.
The creation of narrow chauvinistic criteria of who deserved to be called a
"German" by the powers-to-be was nothing new. Almost every day,
various government officals reminded social democrats that they would
never drop the old conservative charge that socialists were "lawless,
unpatriotic, fanatic, and uncultured."41 Late in 1906, however, the
"nationalist question" made its appearance on the stage of German
politics with unprecedented force.
Seeking the authorization of additional military credits for its low-grade
colonial wars in Southwest Africa, the German government suddenly
found itself confronted with an unfamiliar problem: a majority of the
Reichstag delegates refused to approve the funds. Chancellor von Biilow,
himself a former foreign secretary and celebrated expert in colonial affairs,
was forced to dissolve the parliament over this issue. Charging the
majority with "forsaking the fatherland in its hour of danger," he called
for new elections in January 1907, hoping to use the next couple of weeks
to negotiate the terms of a new coalition that would approve the necessary
funds. The dissolution of the parliament could not have come at a worse
41
Chancellor Biilow cited in Roth, The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany, p. 121.
190 Disappointment
time, for the government was still under the shock of the Moroccan Crisis:
just a few months before, ignoring the protests of France and its allies and
intent on further expanding Germany's political and economic sphere of
influence, Kaiser Wilhelm had interrupted his Mediterranean spring
vacation in Tangier to pledge publicly his support for maintaining the
independence of Morocco against the French. The French government
quickly activated its allies and called for an international diplomatic
conference in the Spanish port city of Algeciras to settle the dispute.
Predictably, Germany failed to win support for its position from other
major European powers like Russia, Britain, and Italy. Chancellor von
Billow was eventually forced to accept an unfavorable settlement uphol-
ding France's previous status as the hegemonic power in a nominally
"independent" Morocco.
Seeking to cover up its dual embarrassment in the area of foreign affairs
and intent on swaying public opinion at home in its favor, the German
Imperial Government unleashed an unprecedented propaganda cam-
paign which was "officially" directed against the "foreign enemies of the
Fatherland." Stressing the importance of the upcoming elections for
Germany's international reputation, the government's campaign relied
on the simplistic, but highly effective myth of an "encirclement strategy"
devised by its European rivals in order to deny Germany its rightful place
among the great colonial powers. Repeating its preposterous claims that
Germany's "national honor" had been tainted by "French provoca-
tions," the government succeeded in stirring up nationalist passions that
cut across existing social cleavages. Calling on his subjects to vote, first
and foremost, as "Germans" in this "national election," the Kaiser
himself complemented the vilification of Germany's "external enemies"
with the demonization of domestic political opponents by stepping up his
anti-Catholic and anti-socialist propaganda. While the SPD had always
served the regime as a convenient example of "pernicious international-
ism," Matthias Erzberger's Catholic Center Party had drawn the em-
peror's wrath by exposing administrative abuses in the colonies, thus
carrying the major responsibility for the parliamentary refusal of the war
credits.42
Eager to ride the Protestant-Prussian jingoistic wave for their own
electoral advantage, national-liberals quickly promised the chancellor to
join the Conservative Party in a future governing coalition. Without the
Center Party, however, von Biilow needed additional support, which he
managed to garner from the left-liberals. Though traditionally critical of
colonialism, the latter were ultimately persuaded to join the new "Biilow
42
Heckart, From Bassermann to Bebel, p. 49.
 The revisionist debate extended 191
Bloc," drawn by the chancellor's seemingly genuine intentions to grant
major liberal concessions within the next two years. Of course, von Biilow
never fulfilled these promises; his meaningless 1908 "proposals for
reform" included neither the reform of the Prussian suffrage law, nor the
promised liberalization of the repressive German Association Act. The
instrumentalism of the left-liberals had been met by an even greater
instrumentalism on the part of the government. Although the "Biilow
Bloc" lasted less than two years, and von Biilow himself resigned in 1909,
permanent damage was done to German liberalism. The tensions and
ideological divisions within the left-liberal camp had grown in proportion
to their political disappointment, a process leading to the resignation of
left-liberal leaders Barth, Paul Nathan, and Rudolf Breitscheid from the
Freisinnige Vereinigung, and the further fragmentation of the liberal
movement. Most importantly, however, orthodox Marxists had finally
obtained the necessary "proof of Bernstein's political naivete: it was now
plain for everyone to see that the left-liberals had "sold out" to the
government, abandoning their professed democratic principles of build-
ing a progressive alliance. Even rather moderate members of the SPD's
Executive Committee, like Hermann Molkenbuhr, made the case that the
creation of a socialist-liberal alliance was an impossible "pipe dream,"
because social democracy remained as the only genuinely democratic,
non-nationalist party in Germany.43
But the disastrous election results of 1907 put Molkenbuhr's claim in
dispute. Losing nearly half of their parliamentary seats, orthodox Marxists
were dismayed to learn that the goverment's chauvinistic appeals had even
resonated with sizeable segments of the working class, appealing to them
more strongly than Bebel's orthodox pleas for "a common identity of the
international proletariat." Kautsky's warning that "The German prolet-
ariat [should be] at one with the French proletariat and n o t . . . with the
German firebrands and Junkers" had not been heeded, thus dealing a
severe blow to the party's internationalist self-understanding.44 Recogniz-
ing the growing importance of the "national question," a number of vocal
SPD Praktiker demanded from their party leadership the immediate
reversal of its traditional internationalist stance. Claiming to rescue the
party from its "misguided internationalist path," Joseph Bloch, editor of
Sozialistische Monatshefte, emerged as one of the major revisionist cham-
pions of the nationalist cause.45 He openly defended the wisdom of a
"nationalist course," predicting that, in the long run, it would prove to be
43
Ibid., pp. 70-73.
44
Ibid., p . 7 1 .
45
Bloch cited in Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the Working Class Mentality in Germany
1887-1912,p. 215.
192 Disappointment
much more in tune with the widespread "patriotic sentiments" of the
German working class.46
No doubt, the 1907 election marked a turning point in the history of the
SPD as calls for a change of the party's "internationalist Marxist
character" and the defense of "German civilization" seemed to draw a
larger audience. Influential party members began to doubt Bebel's
political instincts, forcing the old party leader to rethink his international-
ism and align himself more closely with the "nationalist revisionists." For
example, when SPD Reichstag member, Gustav Noske, gave his famous
parliamentary speech assuring the country that social democrats, too,
recognized the duty of national defense and would resist with the rest if
Germany should be "pressed to the wall," even Bebel rushed to the
podium to congratulate the speaker.47
Stimulated by the success of radical nationalists like Alfred Hugenberg
and General Keim in organizing the "new middle classes" into politically
powerful "nationalist associations" (nationale Verbande)> nationalist revi-
sionists demanded similar initiatives from their own party leadership.
Soon these demands mushroomed into a general denunciation of existing
party tactics and their underlying theoretical framework. Severe criticisms
pointing to the paucity of psychological insights in Marxism - especially
with regard to the actual features of the modern "proletarian conscious-
ness" - emerged almost overnight.48 The failed modernization of Marxist
theory had come back to haunt the the party, only this time, nationalism
was dictating the direction of change. The 1907 elections had pulled the
plug; suddenly even minor organizational details like the choice of sites for
upcoming party congresses were fair game for criticism. Most critics dealt
with the political ramifications of the national question; others used
cultural concepts like "national identity" to turn against the educational
philosophy of party-led workers' schools whose curriculum, in Bernstein's
words, still reflected the previous century's "monstrosities of Marxist
scholasticism."49 Still others lamented the failure of orthodox Marxism to
deal with the "spiritual dimension" of the workers' struggle, not hesitating
to combine Marx and Nietzsche in the peculiar image of a this-worldly
"proletarian superman" who would facilitate a "transvaluation of all
values" according to superior norms.50
46
Joseph Bloch, untitled, SM 11 (1907), pp. 247-249.
47
Noske and Heine cited in Snell, The Democratic Movement in Germany, p. 297.
48
See, for example, Ludwig Quessel, "Zur Psychologie des modernen Proletariat," SM 13
(1909), pp. 811-820.
49
Eduard Bernstein, "Die Theorie in der Partei," in SM 13 (1909), pp. 1,531-1,537.
50
See Steven E. Aschheim, The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990 (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1994), pp. 164-181; and Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and
the Working Class Mentality in Germany 1887-1912, p. 211.
 The revisionist debate extended 193
The latter tendency found its most prominent personification in the
influential Austrian socialist party journalist Karl Leuthner. A gifted
orator and fervent apostle of anti-liberal "national socialism," Leuthner
saw the unqualified support of German Realpolitik as the essence of all true
socialist politics.51 Modifying the doctrine of "the will to power" of the
"divine Nietzsche" to fit his own nationalist brand of socialist revisionism,
Leuthner sharply condemned the humanist tradition of the Enlighten-
ment for its "obvious lack of realism and political effectiveness."52 Both
through the efforts of revisionists like Leuthner and the government's
continued nationalist propaganda in the wake of the "Second Moroccan
Crisis" in 1911, right-wing forces gathered momentum in the German
labor movement. So deeply did these nationalist seeds take root, that there
was a great clamor within the party to openly back the expansionist drive
of the government for new colonies and further accelerate its dangerous
naval build-up program. Seeking to strengthen their power base within
the labor movement, nationalist revisionists worked closely with influen-
tial union functionaries in formulating concrete proposals for altering the
SPD's "outdated" internationalist and "anti-patriotic" image. Playing
with vaguely defined concepts such as "cultural community" and
"healthy patriotism," nationalist revisionists sought to combine immedi-
ate electoral objectives with a new ideological vision of Weltpolitik which
would resonate more closely with the propaganda of the government and
the supposedly "national interests" of the German electorate.
Despite these early warning signs, the shrinking number of orthodox
Marxists and revolutionary radicals refused to believe that the prevailing
xenophobic mood was actually blossoming in the "internationalist" soil
that had so nurtured the German proletariat. In the face of it all, radical
Marxists like Liebknecht and Klara Zetkin continued to standfirmin their
cosmopolitan principles, arguing that the party should ignore the reversal
at the polls and continue to emphasize its international character.53 Their
comments increasingly drew the ire of nationalist revisionists like Gustav
Noske, Max Schippel and Richard Calwer. But the combination of
Marxist orthodoxy and radicalism was still influential enough to muster a
swift response; behind the scenes, Kautsky managed to build a coalition
against Calwer, who was soon dropped as a possible SPD candidate for
the Reichstag and was ultimately pressured to resign from the party.
Kautsky interpreted the poor election results of 1907 as yet another
confirmation of Marx's polarization thesis; a development that clearly
indicated the sharpening contradictions in modern capitalism, soon to
51
Fletcher, Revisionism and Empire, p. 82.
52
Ibid., p. 83.
53
Heckart, From Bassermann to Bebel, p. 72.
194 Disappointment
culminate in a general collapse of the system.54 From where he sat, such
"temporary setbacks" were actually a sign that Bebel's strategy of
revolutionary attentisme was corresponding to "objective" social develop-
ments. But to an increasing number of his comrades, it was clear that
Kautsky's internationalist-Marxist position had seen its day. At the
various post-1907 party conferences, nationalist revisionists staged im-
passioned hymns to the "virtues of fatherland," receiving louder applause
from the delegates than Karl Liebknecht's plea to renew the party's efforts
toward providing the working class with a "proper education in the
tradition of proletarian internationalism." It would take years for Kautsky
to admit that his cherished theoretical mission of imparting "correct
Marxist principles" to the party had been severely jeopardized by
nationalist-revisionist forces and that the SPD was actually "going
backwards."55
Another German socialist who did not receive high grades in acknowl-
edging the ominous signs of the time was Eduard Bernstein. This was due,
in part, to his dedication to the cause of facilitating a liberal-socialist
rapprochement- even after the "liberal betrayal" of 1907. Unlike Kautsky,
Bernstein downplayed the instrumentalism of the left-liberals, arguing
that since the German working class was not yet strong enough on its own
to create a democratic society, new coalition attempts with liberal forces
would be inevitable.56 For Bernstein, it was of greatest importance for the
extension of democratic rights that social democracy overcome its
partially self-imposed political isolation and develop a climate of mutual
trust with the "advanced segments of the German bourgeoisie" - in spite
of temporary setbacks. Maintaining close contact with Theodor Barth,
Bernstein clung to the hope that the latter's creation of the new
Democratic Union Party in 1908 might still keep alive the dream of a
German progressive alliance similar to the one existing in England.57
Indeed, in the same year, Barth notified Bernstein of his resumed efforts
for cooperation with the SPD, in particular the institution of a joint
left-liberal-social democratic suffrage committee on the basis of the SPD
party program.58
His ultimate goal within his grasp, an overjoyed Bernstein succeeded in
persuading his party leader to discuss the conditions of such a cooperation
agreement personally with Barth. But Bebel's long-standing anti-bour-
54
Karl Kautsky, "Der 25. Januar," in NZ 25 (1906/07), pp. 589-592.
55
Kautsky cited in Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the Working Class Mentality in Germany
1887-1912, p. 234.
56
Bernstein cited in EB, p. 101.
57
Bernstein, "Randbemerkungen," pp. 879-884. See also SM 12 (1908), pp. 782-783,
934.
58
Heckart, From Bassermann to Bebel, p. 57.
 The revisionist debate extended 195
geois sentiments and hardened political suspicion of anything even
remotely "liberal" prevented a rapprochement. Fearing a politically explos-
ive "mixing of water and fire," and even risking a open split with a small
number of dissenting revisionists, Bebel stood firmly opposed to a formal
cooperation agreement with the liberals. Although other SPD leaders, like
Paul Singer and Franz Mehring, considered Barth's faction "the most
intelligent group of the German bourgeoisie," they, too, concurred with
Bebel's assessment, insisting that the party distance itself from Barth,
whose "political propaganda actually aims at destroying the solid pillars of
the class-conscious proletariat."59 Bernstein's fading hopes that the
party's highest decision-making body - the Executive Committee - would
nonetheless authorize a formal cooperation agreement with Barth disin-
tegrated before his eyes when the SPD organ issued a negative judgment
that reflected Bebel's arguments.
But on the other side of the ideological fence, Barth was just as
unsuccessful in rounding up support for his proposal among his liberal
friends. Many left-liberals had not forgotten that social democratic
electoral campaigns were frequently accompanied by harsh socialist
screeds caricaturing their candidates, thus offending even those young
left-liberals who had genuinely sought a political connection to the labor
movement.60 Pointing fingers at each other, both sides called Barth's and
Bernstein's initiative a "meaningless gesture" from an "unreliable part-
ner."61 In the end, Barth was forced to cancel a joint liberal-socialist
protest meeting in Bernstein's district of Breslau for fear of violent clashes
involving members of both camps - a clear sign that the liberal rank and
file was not yet ready to associate with the "reds."62 In an interview
published in the Hungarian paper Pester Lloyd, Bernstein vented his
disappointment, complaining about the "remarkably undemocratic char-
acter" of certain elements in German liberalism which had continuously
frustrated the indispensable formation of a democratic liberal-socialist
alliance.63
Both Barth and Bernstein had failed to penetrate their respective party's
rigid structures of self-definition. Relying solely on its own strength, the
labor movement clearly lacked the means and the popular support for a
large-scale showdown with Prussian authoritarianism. Bernstein's dream
59
Mehring cited in Konstanze Wegner, Theodor Barth und die Freisinnige Vereinigung:
Studien zur Geschichte des Linksliberalismus im wilhelminischen Deutschland, 1893-1910
(Tubingen: Mohr, 1968), pp. 125-126.
60
SeeiWd.,pp. 121-126.
61
Ibid., p. 126.
62
Heckart, From Bassermann to Bebel, p. 58.
63
Bernstein cited in "Eine Unterredung mit Eduard Bernstein," in Pester Lloyd (1907),
Bernstein A G473.
196 Disappointment
of a liberal-socialist alliance with the declared goal of democratizing
German politics was not only frustrated by the increasing nationalist
mood in the country, but also by the ideological rigidity of the SPD. The
bitter lesson that his Aristotelian "principle of the middle way"64 hardly
translated into the harsh realities of Germany's divided society, was
reinforced only months after his failed initiative with Barth.
In 1908, SPD state parliamentarians of the southern state of Baden
voted in favor of a state budget that included wage and salary raises.
Pointing out that standing party rules clearly prohibited such a "legitima-
tion" of the existing political regime and calling for greater "party
discipline," Bebel initiated an official SPD resolution of censure against
the Baden representatives. Revisionists of all shades used this dispute to
point to the contradiction between "our long-standing parliamentarian
practice and divorced [Marxist] theory."65 Although Bebel succeeded in
getting his resolution of censure passed at the 1908 Party Conference, 119
delegates who had voted against the resolution passed a separate state-
ment in which they refused to acknowledge the binding character of
Bebel's document. The party clearly stood divided. Bernstein bemoaned
the SPD's missed opportunity of endorsing the Baden initiative as a
practice of "responsible cooperation," accusing Bebel and other "Marxist
scholastics" of "turning party discipline into the censorship of idols."66
Indeed, a strong argument can be made that, by rejecting Bernstein's
political vision of a liberal socialism, German social democracy missed a
unique historical opportunity to lay the foundation for a far less conflictual
relationship with the bourgeois camp after 1918. Had there been an
established practice of more extensive cooperation between social democ-
racy and the forces of liberalism, perhaps the crucial first SPD coalition
with the left-liberals in 1919 would not have failed after only a few
months, thus creating a very different foundation for the ill-fated Weimar
Republic.
The missed opportunities of 1908 show that the SPD's orthodox
Marxist leadership of the years 1900-14 bears some responsibility for
failing to solve the "German Question" - the country's persistent inability
to provide a home for democracy in its liberal sense. This is not to
second-guess the possible success or failure of a liberal-socialist bloc.
Even if it had come to the formation of an SPD alliance with Barth's small
left-liberal party on the question of electoral reform, it is highly question-
able whether such a coalition would have held up long enough to wrest
64
Aristotle, The Politics, translated and introduced by T. A. Sinclair (New York: Penguin,
1986), p. 330.
65
Eduard David cited in EB, p. 106.
66
Eduard Bernstein, "Parteidisziplin," in SM 14(1910), p. 1,221.
 The revisionist debate extended 197
actual political concessions from the entrenched source of real power.
Both Bernstein's and Barth's ethical theory of mobilization politics ran
into the iron wall of Prussian power politics, their liberal-democratic
ideals clashing with the necessary systemic imperatives of political parties
that were too small to enforce social change against the authoritarian elite,
and too large to risk political annihilation.

"Noble patriotism"
Bernstein rejected any strategy which would elevate German nationalism
and make it attractive to a working class searching to fill the ideological
void left behind by an increasingly ossified Marxism.67 Still, it was clear
that in the decades following Engels' death, Bernstein had moved away
from the orthodox Marxist internationalism he had espoused in his early
articles in Der Sozialdemokrat. For example, he criticized Marx for his
lacking understanding of the powerful influence of nationalism on all
social classes, including the proletariat.68 Seeking to address better this
powerful phenomenon, Bernstein included in his own theory of national-
ism psychological and ideological elements like "ethnic resentment" and
the desire for the "satisfaction of an ethnic sense of superiority"in
addition to economic factors.69 Most of all, he objected to BebePs and
Kautsky's defeatist strategy of dealing with the national question by
invoking a "meaningless" Marxist Utopia in an "internationalist socialist
future" which would make the issue of nationalism irrelevant.70 In a series
of essays, Bernstein outlined his views on nationalism in his characteristic
"moderate" fashion: "It is necessary to avoid both the Scylla of eth-
nonationalism and the Charybdis of an amorphous internationalism."71
He began his arguments by reminding his comrades that the formation
of the post-eighteenth-century modern nation state depended on its
citizens' "natural feelings of love for their own country and their
people."72 Yet, unlike the pure sentiments of primordial solidarity
observed in tribal societies during earlier cultural stages, modern national-
67
Eduard Bernstein, "Die Massen werden irre," in SM 13 (1909), pp. 1,012-1,018.
68
Eduard Bernstein, "Einige Klippen der Internationalist," in SM 5 (1901), p. 255.
69
Eduard Bernstein, "Handelspolitik und Volkerbeziehung," in Sozialdemokratische Vol-
kerpolitik, pp. 167-178.
70
Eduard Bernstein, "Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie und die tiirkischen Wirren," in NZ
15.1 (1896/97), p. 110.
71
Eduard Bernstein, "Geburtenriickgang, Nationalist, und Kultur," SM 17 (1913), p.
1,497. For an excellent discussion of Bernstein's nationalist perspective, see Hans
Mommsen, "Nationalismus und die nationale Frage im Denken Eduard Bernsteins," in
H e i m a n n a n d M e y e r , Bernstein und der demokratische Sozialismus, p p . 1 3 1 - 1 4 8 .
72
Eduard Bernstein, "Patriotismus und Klassenkampf," in Sozialistische Volkerpolitik, p.
134.
198 Disappointment
ism also harbored a progressive element manifested in the sociological
function of modern "organically developed social organisms" to defend
their integrity, independence, and cultural distinctiveness without im-
peding each others' drive toward higher forms of social complexity.73 In
other words, Bernstein identified an "evolutionary," sociological function
of nationalism, which he called "noble patriotism," as opposed to
"anachronistic," pre-modern forms of solidarity. The former was anchor-
ed in his general acceptance of the nation state as the most approporiate
form of modern social organization and in optimistic assumptions
regarding the steady growth of economic and political interdependence
through international commerce, the rising importance of international
law, and the expected evolution of democratic socialism.
As expressions of the "spirit of the modern age," these modern
developments were bound to strengthen the citizens' "noble patriotic
sentiments" as well as their cosmopolitan feelings of respect for, and
cooperation with other nations.74 "Noble patriotism" was the highest
expression of the "civic impulse" that would ultimately connect all groups
of society under the leadership of the working class. This definition
resembles "Constitutional Patriotism," a concept coined by the contem-
porary German philosopher Jurgen Habermas: only in this sense did
Bernstein expect socialism to be "nationalist."75
But in order to fulfill their civic duty to defend their nation state against
natural and social threats, citizens were entitled to full political liberty.
Most importantly, genuine forms of popular sovereignty had to be
introduced through universal and equal suffrage. As long as the German
government prevented the extension of the democratic principle to all
social classes, it pandered to the power interests of the Junkers in the name
of the "fatherland," while stifling social democratic efforts to establish an
international community of civilized peoples.76 As soon as the logic of
representative democracy was reflected in political institutions, the
proletariat gradually began to acquire legitimate "national interests" in
the form of "national rights and duties." Far from merely "tolerating"
nationalism, Bernstein saw it as the duty of the party to strengthen such
nationalist principles like "the maintenance of the nation's effective
self-defense against aggressors."77
73
Eduard Bernstein, "Patriotismus, Militarismus und Sozialdemokratie," in SM 11
(1907), pp. 435-437.
74
Eduard Bernstein, "Wie Fichte und Lassalle national waren," in Archiv fiir die Geschichte
des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung 5 (1915), p. 161; and Bernstein, "Patriotismus
und Klassenkampf," pp. 130-136.
75
Bernstein, "Patriotismus, Militarismus und Sozialdemokratie," p. 437.
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid., pp. 439^140.
 The revisionist debate extended 199
For Bernstein, "nationalism" was not an ideological ploy "invented"
by the bourgeoisie in order to perpetuate exploitative economic relations.
Any efforts aimed at indoctrinating the proletariat with abstract interna-
tionalist principles would run aground on the workers' natural emotional
attachment to Germany. The Marxist slogan of the "proletariat without a
fatherland" was only valid as long as some segments of the population
were systematically denied access to political power. The retention of the
SPD's "mushy cosmopolitanism" would result in pushing the proletariat
into the arms of nationalist fanatics while also failing to attract progressive
segments of the bourgeoisie.78 As the 1907 elections showed, the SPD
could no longer ignore the formation of a proletarian "nationalist
consciousness;" the point was to keep it from turning toward exclusivist
notions of race and ethnicity.79
Thus, Bernstein also acknowledged the existence of a second, "per-
verted" form of nationalism, which he called volkischer Nationalisms, or
"ethnonationalism."80 As Bernstein saw it, the latter was built on
scientifically questionable categories that essentialized language, race,
and heredity, and supported a politically reactionary turn to pre-industrial
forms of solidarity. The justification of nation states on the basis of ethnic
purity not only contradicted Bernstein's cherished humanitarian ideals,
but also harbored a dangerous logic of exclusivism that remained blind to
the ethical purpose of the national idea as ultimately serving the ends of
humanity.81
On this issue, however, Bernstein ran into a serious conceptual
dilemma: how could he be so sure that the German proletariat would cling
to the "healthy, noble" brand of nationalism and not its pernicious ethnic
cousin? Unfortunately, he never clarified this crucial theme. Instead, with
his characteristic evolutionary optimism, Bernstein declared eth-
nonationalism as a merely "artificial and pathological aberration" - a
relatively short-lived phenomenon that would find its certain demise in
the hands of the "noble patriotism" championed by the working class. On
this issue, Bernstein seems to have forsaken his empiricist skepticism for
an almost "Marxian" determinism by closing his eyes to the fact that
ethnonationalism, both within and without the SPD, was rapidly acquir-
ing strength. Were not his frequent literary battles with ultranationalist
revisionists and his increasing alienation from the chauvinistic circle
around Sozialistische Monatshefte editors like Bloch and Leuthner a clear
reminder of the growing attraction of the supposed "aberration?"
78
Bernstein, "Die internationale Politik der Sozialdemokratie," in SM 13 (1909), p. 615.
79
Ibid., pp. 614-615.
80
Bernstein, "Patriotismus, Militarismus, und Sozialdemokratie," p. 437.
81
Bernstein, "Wie Fichte und Lassalle national waren," p. 150.
200 Disappointment
Bernstein remained far too sanguine about the supposed demise of
ethnonationalism in the long run: "In all countries where the working class
assumes political significance, it develops a new, socialist variant of
patriotism. This patriotism can never legitimate the domination of one
nationality by another; rather, it leads to the realization of equal,
democratic rights."82 In fact, he could not produce empirical evidence for
such evolutionary assumptions. Exchanging Marx's internationalist-rev-
olutionary dogmatism for his own equally mechanistic-evolutionary
Utopia of a "noble patriotism," Bernstein displayed a rationalist optimism
which assumed that the ethical appeal to "practical reason" would
ultimately be reciprocated by the masses. He was overly confident that the
working class had the capacity to weigh rationally the arguments of both
sides and ultimately sanction the "middle way" he had found, one that
viewed the German nation as a "link in the organic chain of international
civilization; independent vis-a-vis other nations on the basis of an
international democratic equality of rights and duties."83
As far as the short-term consequences of ethnonationalism were con-
cerned, however, Bernstein did grasp its ominous consequences, includ-
ing the possibility of an impending war of unknown proportions: "There
is today no reaction so dangerous as the exuberance of the national spirit.
Without exaggeration, one might call this phenomenon the mother of all
reactionisms, for all are incorporated in it."84 In the same vein, he
condemned the imperialist policies of the "Prussian militaristic elite,
detached from its own people" as a backward step in cultural develop-
ment.85
Overall, the practical consequences of Bernstein's "noble nationalism"
were unmistakably clear: it surely played into the hands of nationalist
revisionists who had long demanded an adjustment of "abstract interna-
tionalism" to the "concrete patriotic sentiments of the ordinary German
worker." The German liberals ridiculed his "noble patriotism," embrac-
ing instead at least parts of the government's ethnonationalist propaganda
with its anti-Semitic undertones. Only when directly confronted with
their aggressive rhetoric couched within the framework of German
Weltpolitik did Bernstein seem to recognize the magnitude of the problem:
"But what disheartens one with the German Liberals is that they are
opportunists in their ways of thinking and arguing. One can hardlyfinda

82
Bernstein, "Patriotismus, Militarismus, und Sozialdemokratie," p. 438.
83
Bernstein, "Die internationale Politik der Sozialdemokratie," p. 615.
84
Bernstein, "Geburtenriickgang, Nationalist, und Kultur," p. 1,497. See also Bernstein's
critique of the arms race that might end in a "terrible catastrophe" (Bernstein cited in EB,
p. 128).
85
Bernstein, "Patriotismus, Militarismus und Sozialdemokratie," p. 439.
 The revisionist debate extended 201
consistent Free Trader amongst them. How can one expect to find a
consistent peace politician?"86
In particular, Bernstein was referring to the national-liberals as well as
Friedrich Naumann's resistance to a German-British disarmament pact.
Retreating to a classical Marxist position, he began to argue that the
increasing jingoism of upper-class German liberalism was not merely
ideological but practical, because of its material connection to the rapidly
growing German military-industrial complex.87 Only in such lonely
moments of bitter disappointment, did Bernstein allow himself to see
some wisdom in Kautsky's long-held conviction that Germany's only way
out of political authoritarianism and the escalating arms race might be,
after all, a proletarian-based "revolutionary upheaval."88
In the long run, however, such sentiments passed, and Bernstein
returned to his more fitting role of the optimistic apostle of gradualism
and evolutionary socialism. Despite the depressing fact that even moder-
ate academics and public intellectuals were beginning to preach eth-
nonationalism, he refused to let go of his Enlightenment rationalism.
Surely, German people would "come to their senses" once the chauvin-
istic distortions and lies of the mainstream press were unmasked,
wouldn't they? True to his ethical ideals, Bernstein kicked off an
"educational campaign for political enlightenment," urging his British
and French political friends to join his cause and speak out against
ethnonationalism - especially now that the German Liberals had so
"cowardly abandoned this task."89 With unusual vehemence, he un-
leashed parliamentarian broadsides against the government's discrimina-
tory ethnic policies toward, for example, Polish minorities in Silesia.
Bernstein's impassioned indictments of the Crown Prince's hyper-
nationalist speeches brought vitriolic calls to order by the Conservative
President of the Reichstag.
When Erich von Falkenhayn, the popular German Secretary of War,
skillfully employed his ethnonationalist interpretation of J. G. Fichte's
famous Addresses to the German Nation in support of the government's
imperialist policies, Bernstein answered with a speech emphasizing the
liberal principles of the French Revolution embedded in Fichte's notion
of national self-determination: "Fichte's patriotism purported to educate
his people to liberty, to champion freedom. He was hostile to all
chauvinism, to all exaggerated nationalism. Fichte was a democrat, Fichte
86
Eduard Bernstein, "How the New Reichstag Will Look," in The Nation 10 (December
30, 1911), p. 551.
87
Eduard Bernstein, "The Marauders," in The Nation 13 (April 26, 1913), p. 142.
88
Eduard Bernstein, "Almighty, All-devouring Militarism," in The Nation 13 (April 5,
1913), p. 16.
89
Eduard Bernstein, "Social Insanity," in The Nation 10 (October 14, 1911), p. 94.
202 Disappointment
was a republican, and, insofar as the era allowed, Fichte was a socialist."90
Expanding his arguments, Bernstein published a lengthy essay, entitled
"The Nationalism of Fichte and Lassalle," in which he challenged the
Conservative minister's influential interpretation.91
In fact, it is likely that Bernstein's own basic assumption that patriotic
sentiments could coexist with a humanistic commitment to cosmopolitan
values emerged from an extremely sympathetic reading of Fichte's
political thought.92 Altogether bypassing the marked differences in the
radical writings of the young admirer of the French Revolution from the
more conservative essays of the anti-French defender of the "German
Idea" composed after Napoleon's 1806 victory at Jena, Bernstein readily
offered his own idiosyncratic translation of Fichte's seemingly paradoxical
concept of a "patriotic cosmopolitanism": "[It is] the sense of a noble
patriotism which seeks for its own people a respected status in a republic
of peoples without losing sight of the idea of a greater, composite
republic."93 Like Fichte's "dialectical" equation of "patriotism" with
"internationalism," Bernstein's "noble patriotism" differed markedly
from the Enlightenment understanding of cosmopolitanism proposed by
Kant and Schiller. By failing to acknowledge Fichte's questionable
dialectical reinterpretation of these key concepts, Bernstein remained
unaware that the Fichtean notion of a "cosmopolitan patriotism" was
sufficiently ambivalent to permit Minister Falkenhayn's ethnonationalist
demands for a "Greater Germany" based on Volkstum and linguistic
superiority.
When international tensions rose once again in the wake of Germany's
bellicose posture during the Second Moroccan Crisis of 1911, Bernstein
reacted sharply to the anti-British propaganda of those nationalists who
were equating the foreign policy objectives of his admired English system
with those of "Czarist despotism." As early as the 1890s, the German
government had commenced a gigantic naval buildup with the declared
goal of challenging the long-standing hegemony of the British navy.
Exploding its defense budget by nearly 400 percent in twelve years, Kaiser
Wilhelm's government encouraged the formation of a notoriously chau-
vinistic navy officer corps whose members took pride in contributing to
the government's highly effective public smear campaign against the
allegedly "anti-German politics of Great Britain." As one of the foremost
90
Bernstein cited in Roger Fletcher, "Revisionism and Nationalism: Eduard Bernstein's
Views on the National Question, 1900-1914," in Canadian Review of Studies in
Nationalism 11.1 (1984), p. 106.
91
Bernstein, "Wie Fichte und Lassalle national waren," pp. 143-162.
92
Ibid., p . 151; see also Eduard Bernstein, Von der Aufgabe der Juden im Weltkriege (Berlin:
Reiss, 1917), pp. 46-47.
93
Bernstein, "Wie Fichte und Lassalle national waren," p. 161.
 The revisionist debate extended 203
experts on British politics in the Reichstag, Bernstein used the parliamen-
tary stage to warn publicly against the emperor's militaristic "politics of
the iron fist" against England. Reminding his socialist and bourgeois
colleagues of the beneficial trade relations between the two nations,
Bernstein emphasized that it would be "the most myopic and idiotic
politics to turn the great English nation into Germany's enemy."94
But since most ordinary German workers knew very little about British
culture or British politics, Bernstein's denouncements of the govern-
ment's vicious propaganda campaign fell on deaf ears. Even his short
1911 monograph, The English Peril and the German People, published by
the party press with Bebel's full support, remained too limited in its
outreach. From the very first lines, Bernstein attacked both Germany's
aggressive foreign policy and the ethnonationalist hardliners within his
own party. He condemned what he called the "irresponsible strategy of
Hetzpatrioten [hate patriots]" whose "criminal agitation" could lead to a
world-wide war.95 Only in his closing remarks did he return to a more
conciliatory attitude, suggesting the creation of a "Covenant of Peace
among the Nations," which, following Kant's call for the establishment of
"Perpetual Peace among Nations," would culminate in the application of
international law within the context of a "great European republic of
peoples."96
As might be expected, Bernstein's theory of "noble patriotism" turned
out to be too broadminded for most of his comrades, and he found himself
squeezed between Kautsky's abstract Marxist internationalism and the
aggressive ethnonationalism of his nationalist revisionist comrades. The
battle lines between Marxism and revisionism were drawn: Bernstein's
Aristotelian "middle position" on the national question drew nothing but
ridicule and contempt. Even his strong endorsement of the famous
resolution of the 1912 International Basle Conference, which called for a
coordinated revolutionary strategy among the European proletariat in the
case of war, failed to improve his tainted reputation in Left party circles
whose members regarded him as a "half-and-half supporter of German
imperialism."97 Neither did his pronounced anti-Russian sentiments
(occasionally even approaching Leuthner's slavophobic hysteria) increase
his influence on the nationalist-revisionist Weltpolitiker of the movement
which sought to wed German power politics with the imperialist goals of a
"socialist world policy."
94
Eduard Bernstein, Die englische Gefahr und das deutsche Volk (Berlin: Vorwdrts, 1911), p.
47.
95
Ibid., p . 4 5 .
96
Ibid., p. 48.
97
Georg Ledebour quoted in Fletcher, "Revisionism and Nationalism: Eduard Bernstein's
Views on the National Question, 1900-1914," p. 111.
204 Disappointment
Even his well-meaning symbolic gestures in favor of massive disarma-
ment and world peace provided ammunition for his critics. When
Bernstein helped to organize the Carnegie Endowment-sponsored
"Berne International Conference for the Facilitation of International
Peace/' he was immediately attacked by orthodox Marxists for letting
himself be coopted by "dirty imperialist money." Conversely, nationalist
revisionists ridiculed his mediating role as the deed of a sentimental
"Anglophile," oblivious to "legitimate German national interests." In the
end, Bernstein's search for alternatives to the rising tide of ethnonational-
ism left him with a theoretical model incapable of convincing either side
that internationalism and patriotism should, or even could, be reconciled.
In these last years before the outbreak of the Great War, it had become
clear that what had begun as the SPD's "Revisionist Controversy" had
turned into the "Nationalist Controversy" of German social democracy.
8 The dawn of a new era

Colonialism and culture

Bernstein's views on nationalism indicate that while he supported the
establishment of class-transcending alliances with left-liberals, he had not
abandoned a socialist "class politics." He assigned the working class a
leading role in modern society - not only on the basis of its enhanced
economic productivity and increased social wealth, but also with regard to
its crucial cultural task of refining ethical and spiritual dimensions in
society. For Bernstein, the labor movement was both the bearer of
"noble" forms of patriotism and the most appropriate evolutionary
vehicle for the creation of a new "cultural philosophy," responsible for
uplifting "culturally stagnant civilizations" and educating them for their
eventual independence.1 What he seems to have had in mind was the
transformation of the Victorian "white man's burden" into the more
class-oriented "burden of the proletariat." Although Bernstein's perspec-
tive on colonialism appears to correspond to similar comments made by
Marx, Engels, and Lassalle on topics such as British colonialism in India,
the national awakening of the Balkans, and the Austrian-Italian wars, it
clashed with the anti-colonialism of a younger generation of German
socialists who saw things quite differently.2
During the last two decades of the nineteenth century, the orthodox
party leadership had largely abandoned Marx's and Engels' culturally
biased defense of "the right of civilization against barbarism."3 Bebel,
Kautsky, and Singer rejected colonialism as strengthening the accumula-
tion process of capital as well as adding to the growth of militarism and the

1
Eduard Bernstein, "Vorwort des Herausgebers," in David Koigen, Die Kultur der
Demokratie (Jena: Diederichs, 1912), pp. iii-x.
2
For the development of various socialist views on colonial policy, see Hans-Christoph
Schroder, Sozialismus und Imperialismus (Bonn-Bad Godesberg: Verlag Neue Gesel-
lschaft, 1975); "Eduard Bernsteins Stellung zum Imperialismus vor dem Ersten Wel-
tkrieg," in Heimann and Meyer, Bernstein und der demokratische Sozialismus, pp. 166-212;
Fletcher, Revisionism and Empire, and Hyrkkanen, Sozialistische Kolonialpolitik.
3
Neue Rheinische Zeitung (September 10, 1848), in MEW 5, p. 395.

205
206 Disappointment
likelihood of colonial wars - a view shared by the "orthodox Bernstein" of
the early 1880s.4 For example, in 1884 Bernstein sharply denounced
Germany's participation in the scramble for colonies, arguing that
powerful trading companies would make huge profits on the backs of
indigenous populations and disadvantaged German workers. Moving to
London and falling under the influence of both Engels and the British
free-trade tradition, however, caused the young socialist to change his
perspective. He became acquainted with the "liberal imperialism" of
Lord Rosebury and Sir Edward Grey who speculated that the formation of
"white, democratic, and self-governing colonies" abroad might serve as a
catalyst for the expansion of the desired democratization process at home.
Increasingly affected by their arguments and impressed by the efficient
performance of the British colonial administration, Bernstein soon began
to distinguish among a "variety of quite different forms of imperialism,"
ultimately acknowledging the "positive cultural, political, and economic
effects" in its more "benign" manifestations.5 Having taken this initial
step, he could now proceed to develop the necessary theoretical argu-
ments in favor of an "acceptable socialist colonial policy."6
His change of heart swiftly drew the attention of the British Marxist
Belfort Bax, who, in his famous 1896-97 exchanges with the German
exile had condemned colonialism in any form. Indeed, the Bax-Bernstein
debates on foreign affairs marked the beginnings of what would explode
into the "Revisionist Controversy" of German social democracy. Bax
strongly endorsed a mild form of cultural relativism, stressing native
peoples' rights to maintain their traditional folkways and their own
cultural forms of expression, adding that European colonialist practices
would merely prolong capitalism's lease on life by exporting it around the
globe.7 Bernstein response was quick and harsh. He ridiculed Bax's
"naive Rousseauian ideal of the 'noble savage'" and shrewdly invoked the
authority of the "fathers of modern socialism" in support of his thesis
celebrating the "civilizing effects" of capitalist expansion.8 But unlike his
mentors, Bernstein employed economic arguments only as the final
element in a long chain of reasoning that originated in his Victorian
naturalism. In particular, his "socialist colonialism" was indissolubly
4
See, for example, Anonymous, "Marx iiber das Kolonialsystem," in Der Sozialdemokrat 28
(July 10, 1884).
5
Schroder, "Eduard Bernsteins Stellung zum Imperialismus vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg," in
Heimann and Meyer, Bernstein und der demokratische Sozialismus, p. 169.
6
See also Gerhard A. Ritter, Die Arbeiterbewegung im Wilhelminischen Reich (Berlin:
Colloquium, 1959), p. 194.
7
Bax, "Our German Fabian Convert; or, Socialism According to Bernstein;"and "The
Socialism of Bernstein," in MS, pp. 61-64, 69-74.
8
Eduard Bernstein, "Amongst the Philistines: A Rejoinder to Belfort Bax," in ibid., pp.
65-69.
 The dawn of a new era 207
linked with his rather reductionistic biological-anthropological views on
sexuality and instincts.9
For Bernstein, human sexual behavior evolved from "animallike"
stages of "uncontrolled desires" to higher forms, where emerging econ-
omic, legal, and ethical impulses joined together to subject sexuality to
social rules, thus making it less driven by "natural necessity" and hence
more "rational" or "cultured."10 In the course of their evolution, humans
were moving through ever more pronounced cultural levels, emerging
from preliminary stages of "savagery," "barbarism," and "half-civiliza-
tion," to "advanced stages" of "civilization" where they supposedly
learned "to let their sensuality be sublimated by such activities and tastes
as intellectual training, physical self-discipline, and mental self-con-
trol."11 As a direct consequence of their uncontrolled sex drive, "sav-
ages" remained prisoners of non-rational forms of social interaction,
manifested as "superstition, vanity, and primitive play."12 Moreover,
they subscribed to a limited tribal ethic that conflicted with rational
universalism, the rule of secular law, and individual choice. Although he
underscored that "proper cultural development" manifested itself in the
"control of drives, not in their suppression" Bernstein nonetheless recom-
mended that (heterosexual) couples ought to subordinate sexual pleas-
ures to intellectual endeavors and the aesthetic refinement of taste,
thereby contributing to a "general uplifting" and thus the "evolution" of
their society's culture.13
With such a theory of cultural evolution as its theoretical foundation,
Bernstein's defense of "appropriate forms of socialist colonialism"
focused on the alleged "right of higher civilizations over that of lower
cultures," which he defended as a "hard-earned privilege" of societies
whose rationalism was reflected in advanced forms of economic
9
Eduard Bernstein's Victorian views on sexuality and sexual hygiene were obviously so
highly esteemed in the SPD that he was asked to put together an official SPD pamphlet on
sexuality and sexual hygiene, Der Geschlechtstrieb (Berlin: Vorwarts, 1920). In this
monograph, Bernstein naturalizes gender relations on the basis of sexual behavior: "The
male sexual drive is much stronger than that of the female" (pp. 13-15). Moreover, he
discusses, among other things, "abnormalities and perverted forms of sexuality," like
masturbation, homosexuality, sodomy, and sadism/masochism. In spite of his negative
judgment on homosexuality, Bernstein anticipated Wilhelm Reich's argument that
homosexuality was only partly pathological; mostly it was the product of "unhygienic
social conditions" which would disappear in the course of a "healthy" social development
toward heterosexuality. See, Eduard Bernstein, Bernstein on Homosexuality (London:
Athol Books, 1977), a translation of Bernstein's 1895 Neue Zeit essays on homosexuality in
the context of Oscar Wilde's famous trial.
10
Eduard Bernstein, Der Geschlechtstrieb, p. 9.
11
Ibid., p. 17.
12
Bernstein, "Materialistische Geschichtsauffassung und modernes Geschlechtsleben," n.
d., in Bernstein A, El20.
13
Bernstein, Der Geschlechtstrieb, pp. 17-18.
208 Disappointment
organization as well.14 Such "cultural rights" also implied the "moral
duty" of Western cultures to colonize the Third World, and - echoing the
famous provision in Locke's Second Treatise on Government - their
economic obligation to "improve the productivity of the land, lift its
population density, and advance technology."15 "Indolent savages"
lacked the cultural legitimacy to deny "more advanced peoples" access to
the dormant economic resources of their territories. Technological know-
how was the indispensable precondition for the "healthy evolution of the
forces of production" and thus the spread of civilization, "gradually"
leading to the socialization of the capitalist system. Indeed, Bernstein's
cultural Darwinism even justified the existence of violent struggles
between different cultures, which, no doubt, would end with the "self-
assertion of the higher civilization." The lesson for social democracy was
clear: "Socialists should finally accept the higher culture's ensuing
guardianship over the vanquished peoples and stop their romantic fight
against windmills." After all, Bernstein noted, "even the proletariat has
a legitimate interest in a reasonable geographical expansion of the
nation."16
The familiar Enlightenment theme endorsing the rational attainment of
human freedom through the subjugation of nature reappeared in Bern-
stein's theory of socialist colonialism as a "self-evident" cultural
injunction, for "culture" itself was defined as "the conscious dominance
of man over nature; the manifestation of the principle of individual
personality; and the refinement and diversification of proper tastes."17
Only by transcending the mechanical cause-effect operations of "blind
nature" in cooperative social arrangements could humans ultimately
approach the "socialist ideal."18 Similar to Marx's theory, Bernstein's
evolutionary socialism retained the crucial concept of rational economic
planning.
However, Bernstein's "right of the higher civilization" did not trans-
late into the realist paradigm of his nationalist-revisionist comrades,
who, literally, offered carte blanche for the vigorous pursuit of German
colonial interests by any means necessary. Rather, Bernstein made
colonialist expansion dependent on a number of specific social and
14
Eduard Bernstein, "Der Socialismus und die Kolonialfrage," in SM 4 (1900), p. 559;
"Die Kolonialfrage und der Klassenkampf," p. 989; and "Der Klassenkampf und der
Fortschritt der Kultur," in SM 15 (1911), pp. 1,165-1,169.
15
Eduard Bernstein, "Der Sozialismus und die Colonialfrage," pp. 549-554.
16
Bernstein, "Die Kolonialfrage und der Klassenkampf," pp. 989, 996.
17
Eduard Bernstein, "Materialistische Geschichtsauffassung und modernes Geschlech-
tsleben."
18
Eduard Bernstein, "Arbeiterbewegungund Kultur," Dokumente des Fortschritts 1 (1908),
pp. 523- 530.
 The dawn of a new era 209
political preconditions. Most importantly, he sought to connect the
legitimacy of colonial policies with the degree of political democracy
established in the colonializing country. Given the underdeveloped
democratic structure of the Wilhelmine Empire in which parliament
lacked any control of foreign policy, the very existence of "colonial
policies" devoid of working-class input was highly objectionable. As
noted above, Bernstein employed this argument not only against his own
nationalist-revisionist comrades, but also against Friedrich Naumann's
and Max Weber's national-liberal vision of a German Weltpolitik, com-
paring it unfavorably with the more democratic and libertarian forms of
British and French colonial policy.19
In addition, Bernstein sought to link his support of colonialism to the
modus operandiby which indigenous people were "civilized." Insisting on
a proper application of "ethical methods" vis-d-vis the native population,
he echoed Kant's reservations against the ill-treatment of primal societies
by European powers. On many occasions, Bernstein condemned the
"unspeakable atrocities" committed by Western imperialist forces and
demanded that colonial powers "humanize their actions."20 At the 1907
Stuttgart Congress of the Socialist International, for example, he and his
revisionist comrade Eduard David, pressed hard to make such an ethical
proviso part of an official pro-colonialist resolution: "The expansion of
the capitalist economy will continue, regardless of whether we like it or
not, or whether we pass resolutions for or against it. We cannot prevent its
occurrence, but we can influence its forms and methods in favor of a more
humanitarian society."21 Yet by endorsing colonialist practices in prin-
ciple, both men could merely "deplore" the amount of human suffering
connected with this process without being able to guarantee the imple-
mentation of politically binding moral resolutions or an effective system
for monitoring frequently occurring violations and atrocities.
Finally, Bernstein argued for the establishment of international institu-
tions to settle disputes among "cultured nations" arising from their
colonial endeavors in a peaceful manner. Following the proposal of British
Secretary Grey to press for a full institutionalization of global principles of
conflict resolution through a neutral international court, he suggested the
coordination of international policies that would curb the escalation of
militarism, the menacing naval build-up on both sides of the Channel, and
the most flagrant forms of economic protectionism.22 Abandoning his
19
Eduard Bernstein, "Socialdemokratie und Imperialismus," in SM 4 (1900), pp.
238-251.
20
Immanuel Kant, "Perpetual Peace," in Hans Reis, ed., Kant: Political Writings (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge UP, 1991), p. 106.
21
Eduard Bernstein, "Kulturrecht und Kulturfrage," in Vorwdrts 23.2 (October 4, 1907).
22
Bernstein, Sozialdemokratische Volkerpolitik, pp. 54-58.
210 Disappointment
reserved demeanor, he scolded the nationalist protectionists in the SPD,
demanding that they modify their "myopic" position.23
Indeed, Bernstein's passionate commitment to the principles of free
trade and his sharp denunciation of protective tariffs became one of the
hallmarks of his liberal socialism.24 On these important issues, Bernstein
once again found himself profoundly inspired by the British liberal
tradition. In particular, he seemed to warm up to Richard Cobden's and
Herbert Spencer's economic evolutionism which postulated a positive
correlation between increased international trade relations and the
preservation of world peace.25
But the powerful protectionists in the German labor movement did not
even bother to contemplate what they considered Bernstein's "British
hogwash." Their rejection of free-trade policies provided an important
ideological focus for nationalist revisionists like Max Schippel and
Wolfgang Heine, who felt that protective tariffs best supported the
domestic industrial base, and thus ultimately secured Germany's position
of power in the world. The issue of protectionism soon came to a head in a
major dispute involving Bernstein and his employer, Joseph Bloch.
Bernstein's aggressive article in Sozialistische Monatshefte condemned
Bloch's categorical rejection of free-trade principles as "a deplorable
regression from sophisticated theoretical considerations to coarse empiri-
cal arguments."26 When Bloch demanded an apology, Bernstein refused;
he merely provided a symbolic gesture of reconciliation in his qualified
approval of very moderate protectionistic measures like targeted state
subventions of certain industrial and agricultural sectors.
The SPD's growing internal differences regarding the issues of nation-
alism, colonialism, and culture made painfully apparent that Bernstein's
model of evolutionary socialism had only inadequately addressed the
party's emerging instrumentalism - its willingness to separate ethical
means from political ends. Increasingly, this inclination to abandon
ethical principles at the expense of the organizational expansion of social
democracy surfaced in the "realist" speeches of both party Praktiker and
left-wing radicals. Even Kautsky's orthodox-Marxist faction showed itself
increasingly willing to support reformism as long as the party paid lip
23
Eduard Bernstein, Volkerrecht und Volkerpolitik (Berlin: 1919), p. 184.
24
See, for example, Eduard Bernstein, "Die Britischen Arbeiter und der zollpolitische
Imperialismus," in Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 19 (1904); "Germany
and the Limitation of Armaments," in The Nation 1 (April 6, 1907); "Die Internationale
Politik der Sozialdemokratie," in SM 13 (1909); "How the New Reichstag will look," in
TheNation 10 (December 30, 1911); "A Sacrifice to Folly," in The Nation 12 (March 15,
1913).
25
See Schroder, "Eduard Bernsteins Stellung zum Imperialismus vor dem Ersten Wel-
tkrieg," in H e i m a n n a n d M e y e r , Bernstein und der Demokratische Sozialismus, p . 1 8 3 .
26
Eduard Bernstein, "Zollfreier Internationaler Verkehr," in SM 15 (1911), p. 831.
 The dawn of a new era 211
service to the ultimate "transformation of capitalism." Once again,
Bernstein found himself without a reliable and sizeable base of support in
the party which made the practical translation of his socialist colonialism a
purely academic issue.27 Torn between moral imperatives for the estab-
lishment of a "just" international institutional framework and the
necessary realism of a consequentialist political agenda, Bernstein's pitch
for a "more humane theory of colonialism" went unheeded. The whole
episode represented just another variant of the precarious theoretical
balancing act so typical of his entire political thought.28
Indeed, Bernstein's simultaneous acknowledgment of Germany's "cul-
tural right" to pull even with other colonial powers and his ethical
criticism of the connection between Germany's aggressive foreign policy
and its colonial policy must have sounded rather confused in the ears of
both Marxist internationalists and nationalist revisionists.29 Moreover,
his liberal-evolutionist approach to issues of foreign policy must have
struck them as being theoretically inconsistent, practically unworkable,
and politically out of touch with existing conditions in Germany.
Unwilling to follow Bernstein's theoretical quest, orthodox Marxists,
nationalist revisionists, and atheoretical Praktiker alike distanced them-
selves even further from his evolutionary socialism, fearing that Bern-
stein's "excessive self-reflection" would "hurt" their "cause" in the long
run.30 As a result, his waning capital with the main players in the SPD was
even further depleted. Still, this was only the beginning of a long series of
political disappointments.

The victory of the "party bureaucrats"

As thefirstdecade of the new century was drawing to a close, the character
of the SPD was undergoing fundamental change. Despite the initial
success of Bebel's and Kautsky's ideological campaign against "revision-
ism," both nationalist revisionists and party Praktiker had proven them-
selves extremely capable of finding their way into key positions of social
democracy's expanding bureaucracy. Grasping the crucial importance for
the electoral logic for the expansion of a mass-based party, this "new
guard" of "revisionist" party bureaucrats glorified the centralization of
27
See also Wolfram Wette, Kriegstheorien Deutscher Sozialisten (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1971), pp. 125-144; Hyrkkanen, Sozialistische Sozialpolitik, p. 150; and Schroder,
"Eduard Bernsteins Stellung zum Imperialismus vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg," pp.
184-188.
28
Bernstein, "Vorwort," in Sozialdemokratische Volkerpolitik.
29
This is the core argument of Fletcher's negative judgment of Bernstein's theoretical
contribution to socialist theory. See Fletcher, Revisionism and Empire, pp. 183-188.
30
Heine cited in EB, p. 131.
212 Disappointment
power and their atheoretical instrumentalism as the most appropriate
shield against any policy or theoretical initiative that might endanger the
SPD's popularity at the polls. Feeling the reins of power slowly slipping
through his fingers, the ageing Bebel grew irritable and suspicious, even
going so far as to accuse his old friend Auer of siding with the "revisionist"
cause. Instead of denying Bebel's charge outright, the pragmatic Auer
humorously challenged the Marxist "church fathers" to provide a
workable definition of "revisionism," asking them with feigned ignorance
and surprise: "How do you identify a 'revisionist'? What does such a
specimen look like?"31
In fact, both Bebel and Auer had a point. On one hand, bureaucratiz-
ation and the emphasis on the "national question" had clearly begun to
transform the Marxist character of social democracy. The German labor
movement was in the process of losing its ideological identity; the
once-stellar status of political theory and its Marxist interpreters deterio-
rated even further. On the other hand, as Bernstein never tired of
emphasizing, the so-called "revisionist current" in the SPD was far from
being a monolithic edifice. Comprised of various factions and loosely
organized around certain personalities and political issues, as well as
theoretical outlook, various "revisionists" tended to pursue different
political agendas, which made it extremely difficult for them to speak
effectively in a unified voice. As Auer realized, the process of ideological
and political diversification, kicked off by Bernstein's intervention,
proceeded with breath-taking speed. It had indeed become virtually
impossible to provide a clear definition of a single form of "revisionism"
that would do justice to the variety of its gradations.
Kautsky, on the other hand, still believed in clear lines of demarcation.
Arguing that the revisionist movement had separated into at least two or
three distinct camps, he at least offered a conceptual roadmap that made it
easier to survey the "ideological damage."32 The small intellectual and
politically impotent faction around Bernstein, David, and Kampffmeyer
stood for a consequent reformism based on ethical socialist principles.
Bernstein and his friends highly valued the critical function of their
"evolutionary socialism" in providing the guiding principles of a binding
framework for political practice. Nationalist revisionists, on the other
hand, limited their theoretical involvement to cultural and economic
issues which directly addressed their overriding concerns with the "na-
tional interests" of the German working class. Finally, the rapidly growing
faction of Praktiker sneered at theoretical debates altogether. Eager to
advance in the sprawling network of socialist bureaucracy, they skillfully
31
Auer cited in EB, p. 97.
32
Karl Kautsky, "Der Dresdener Parteitag," in NZ 21.2 (1902/03), pp. 809-815.
 The dawn of a new era 213
used Bebel's own anti-intellectualism to discredit the function of political
theory, hoping that their strategy would eventually weaken the power
position of the old "Marxist" guard. Digesting the lessons of previous
party conferences, the Praktiker understood that they had to proceed
extremely cautiously and refrain from openly challenging Bebel's leader-
ship. They also realized that it was actually in their long-term interest to
support his "anti-revisionist" resolutions, for growing rifts over "mean-
ingless theory" in the labor movement would hurt its political effective-
ness and thus their own careers.33 As long as Bebel maintained his posture
of revolutionary attentisme, the actual reformist practice of the SPD
remained unaffected.
The great majority of the Praktiker were hard-nosed careerists, emo-
tionally divorced from the pioneering days of the "Eisenacher Era" and
increasingly indifferent to the old heroic "proletarian ethos" of the
Bismarck Era. Considering themselves "managers" more than ideo-
logues, they focused almost exclusively on the organizational expansion of
the labor movement. For example, when Friedrich Ebert, the future first
president of the Weimar Republic, assumed his new duties as Secretary-
General of the SPD's Executive Office in Berlin, he was shocked by its
unbusinesslike conditions. Yet, it took him and his operatives only a few
years to build up a well-oiled bureaucratic structure, ensuring, among
other things, that each party office was equipped with a typewriter and a
telephone. By 1911, the party had amassed more than 800,000 members
and organized almost 400 local party branches run by thousands of
salaried and volunteer functionaries. In 1909, the free trade unions
proudly announced having surpassed the 2,000,000 membership thresh-
old with a dues-based income approaching 53,000,000 marks. Under
Ebert's leadership, the receipts of the SPD's Executive Office alone
exceeded 1,300,000 marks, allowing the party to use more than 500,000
marks for educational projects, workers' recreation, propaganda, press
and other party-related matters.34
The fact that the party was now in the position of paying Ebert and
other top functionaries at least three times the wages of a skilled worker
meant that the labor movement had begun to attract professional
bureaucrats with little ideological interest.35 This is not to say that
Praktiker like Ebert, Philip Scheidemann, and Hermann Miiller weren't
committed to the social advancement of the working class. But they
merely contented themselves with running their daily affairs without
33
In general, Bernstein agreed with Kautsky's classification. See Bernstein, Von derSekte zur
Parted p. 54.
34
Ibid., pp. 33-36.
35
See Peter-Christian Witt, Friedrich Ebert (Bonn: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1987), p. 51.
214 Disappointment
having to engage in "abstract" matters of political theory, lofty socialist
"ideals," or dry "Marxology." The development of party strategy and
tactics, however, was a different matter altogether. As long as party
theorists like Karl Kautsky wrote their articles with only scant relevance to
tactical considerations, Praktiker hardly interfered, treating the matter as
the insignificant hobby-horse of socialist intellectuals. When the SPD
theorists touched on matters of immediate political importance, however,
they proved themselves to be far less tolerant. This is not to say that they
could dispose of old-timers like Kautsky and Bernstein at will. Still, the
growing power of the party bureaucrats translated directly into their
increasing ability to exert meaningful pressure on leading theorists to stay
away from the SPD's "real political affairs." Hence, Bernstein's untiring
forays into the realm of socialist theory managed to draw not only the
wrath of the orthodox Marxist theorists, but the stern disapproval of the
Praktiker as well as those union leaders who perceived the ensuing
"unpleasant" public debates on theory as obstructions to the "important
business of the movement."
The gradual loss of Karl Kautsky's theoretical influence and his relative
autonomy as the party's "chief ideologist" serves as a rather impressive
example of these developments. In 1909, Kautsky published The Road to
Power•, his orthodox Marxist credo affirming the importance of revolution-
ary principles and the continued validity of a Marxist analysis of economic
development. In 1891, similar passages received social democracy's full
approval, constituting the bulk of the theoretical portion of the SPD's
party program. Seventeen years later, with the Erfurt Program still
"officially" in place, Kautsky's terminology evoked a harsh reaction from
the Executive Committee. Even the ageing Bebel, generally in agreement
with his friend's ideological perspective, had to bow to the pressure
orchestrated by both the Praktiker and the increasingly vociferous trade-
union leaders, predictably drawing Kautsky's ire: "August's [Bebel's]
difficulty depresses me the most... The word 'revolution' seems to give
him naked physical discomfort... August was for years the only fighter
. .. Now he is exhausted."36
Rejecting The Road to Power as "scandalous" in its "dogmatic rigidity"
even after a hastily convened special arbitration committee had intervened
in Kautsky's favor, the Executive Committee categorically refused to
authorize the pamphlet's republication and further redistribution.37
Caught between the rock of atheoretical pragmatism and the hard place of
Luxemburg's and Liebknecht's radicalism (which charged that he had not
gone far enough), a frustrated Kautsky capitulated to the Executive
36
Kautsky cited in J. P. Nettl, Rosa Luxemburg, vol I. (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1966), p. 409.
37
Pierson, Marxist Intellectuals and the Working-Class Mentality in Germany, p. 232.
 The dawn of a new era 215
Committee. Making its triumph complete, he even agreed to remove
some of the Marxist hyperbole from a number of passages referring to
revolutionary tactics. Although a recent study shows that Kautsky's
alterations may have only amounted to a slight change in emphasis, the
fact remains that the "Pope of Marxism" was forced to acknowledge the
changed power constellations.38 Realizing that the new generation of
"party bureaucrats" was no longer willing to honor his tacit understand-
ing with Bebel (who had granted him a high degree of intellectual
autonomy), Kautsky secretly complained about "these [pragmatist] oafs
who want to show the intellectuals their proper place . . . as mere
sycophants, obediently carrying out their commands."39 Suddenly, he
seemed to forget that, only few years before, he and Bebel had used similar
tactics to demote "revisionist intellectuals" like Kurt Eisner. Ultimately,
Kautsky was forced to swallow this bitter pill and accept his diminished
role or face the possibility of losing the editorship of Neue Zeit. Within the
next few years, he even adapted the language of orthodox Marxism to the
satisfaction of the Praktiker, going so far as to abandon the notion of
proletarian exclusiveness.40
Bernstein, on the other hand, initially mistook the bureaucratization of
the SPD as evidence for the greater acceptance of his evolutionary socialist
model with its "strong focus on administrative and parliamentary activ-
ity."41 Had he listened closely to the warnings issued by more critical
voices in the party, he might have paid more attention to these early signs
of structural petrification. The ossifying German labor movement of the
early twentieth century served the prominent left-wing sociologist Robert
Michels as the model for his influential 1911 study, On the Sociology of
Parties in Modern Democracy^ which maintained that all large-scale
organizations inevitably develop along an "iron law of oligarchy."42
Michels' astute observations described the formation of an inert mass
membership which left the main political decisions to an intricate
leadership network which controlled the gigantic administrative party
apparatus.
Bernstein disagreed, rising to attack the "one-sided character of
Michels' generalizations," and defending the supposedly "democratic
38
John H. Kautsky, Karl Kautsky, p. 10.
39
Karl Kautsky to Hugo Haase (March 9, 1909) in Ursula Ratz, "Briefe zum Erscheinen
von Karl Kautsky's Weg zur Macht" in International Review of Social History 12 (1967),
pp. 465^466.
40
P i e r s o n , Marxist Intellectuals and the Working-Class Mentality in Germany, p . 2 4 4 .
41
Eduard Bernstein, "Das vergrabene Pfiind und die Taktik der Sozialdemokratie," in SM
12 (1906), pp. 292-294.
42
See R o b e r t M i c h e l s , Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie (Leipzig:
Kroner, 1925).
216 Disappointment
character" of the party, specifically its open elections which ensured that
SPD leaders remained fully accountable to the membership.43 In addi-
tion, he felt that Michels' argument relied too heavily on "soft" psycho-
logical variables, such as the "gratitude of the masses toward their
leaders" and its role in "securing elite rule." For his part, Bernstein
defended both the legitimacy and necessity for a professional leadership,
as long as it was connected to frequent elections and technical expertise
and competence.
However, he did concur with one core argument of Michels' critique:
like the orthodox Marxists before them, the party bureaucrats continued
to perpetuate the old incongruence between the revolutionary language
of German social democracy and its reformist practice for purely instru-
mental reasons.44 After attending the SPD's 1906 Mannheim Confer-
ence, Max Weber came to a similar conclusion, arguing that, despite its
radical rhetoric, the increasingly bureaucratized SPD constituted no
revolutionary threat and had become openly accommodationist in its
party tactics: "Mannheim was a miserable affair . . . There were all the
extremely petty-bourgeois attitudes, the self-satisfied physiognomies of
innkeepers, the lack of elan, and the inability to move to the right if the
road to the left is blocked or appears to be so - these [socialist]
gentlemen no longer scare anyone."45 Ironically, the "Marxist" Kautsky
concurred:
Those around David and the trade unionists believe that the moment is opportune
toridthe party of all "Marxism." They will hardly get away with simply kicking us
out, but they dominate the Executive and fill one position after another with their
people. In so doing, they have established an almost unbearable terrorism. They
wish to ... condemn us to the role of dumb animals."46
In these last years before the Great War, the Praktikerwtrz successful in
subordinating theoretical imperatives to the tactical demands of the
moment. They "tamed" orthodox Marxist theorists like Kautsky and
isolated ethical reformists like Bernstein; anyone who threatened their
logic of organizational expansion was fair game for their attacks. Michels'
and Weber's pessimistic assessments of the dangers of bureaucratization
triumphed over Bernstein's more positive expectations. By simply adjust-
ing social democracy to electoral imperatives and the existing political
framework of the Wilhelmine Empire, the new party bureaucrats du-
plicated the static, utilitarian objectives of their "class enemies." Indeed,
43
Eduard Bernstein, "Die Demokratie in der Sozialdemokratie," in SM 14 (1908), pp.
1,107-1,114.
44
Bernstein, "Das vergrabene Pfund und die Taktik der Sozialdemokratie," p. 292.
45
M a x W e b e r cited in R o t h , The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany, p . 2 5 5 .
46
Kautsky to Adler (February 11, 1915), Adler BW, p. 611.
 The dawn of a new era 217
their support for a "negative integration" of the socialist subculture into
the dominant culture of the bourgeoisie has been amply documented by
prominent historians of socialist thought.47
Coming from different ideological camps, both Bernstein and Kautsky
unwittingly contributed to the general devaluation of theory in the SPD.
Their sustained ideological wars had empowered a number of other
"unorthodox" voices within the movement to use the cloak of "revision-
ism" in their battle against Marxist theorists and then drop altogether the
theoretical and ethical underpinnings of Bernstein's evolutionary social-
ism in the name of praxis and the "interests of the German proletariat."
The "Father of Revisionism" himself had provided the Praktiker with a
language of reformism, which, following his slogan of "paying greater
attention to the daily business of leading a mass movement," seemed
merely to execute his demands. While Bernstein's theoretically anchored
"liberal socialism" remained an edifying, but toothless construct,
Kautsky's Marxist orthodoxy was reduced to a purely apologetic, docile,
and reactive enterprise.
How did the SPD's radical left wing fare in this new constellation of
power? Though lacking access to the bureaucratic levers of real power,
Luxemburg and Liebknecht at least managed to muster a last theoretical
challenge to the new party bureaucrats at the 1912 Chemnitz Party
Conference. But in the name of maintaining "working-class unity" as well
as the "existing material interests of our proletarian electorate," the
Praktiker easily pressured Kautsky's Marxists to help them defeat Luxem-
burg's internationalist proposals and her fervent pleas to the party
leadership to organize radical mass action for suffrage reform. The new
generation of party bureaucrats had "grown up," proving that they had
even outdone their predecessors in mastering the fine art of juggling their
Marxist tradition with their instrumentalist objectives. As a contemporary
saying had it, they hung on to Marxist doctrine as if it were Sunday china;
on proud display only because it was never used.

The Great War

August Bebel's death in 1913 and the subsequent promotion of Friedrich
Ebert as co-chairman of the SPD symbolized the final demise of the old
"Eisenacher Party." A new era was dawning, and Bernstein sensed that
the labor movement was facing a difficult future. Disappointed and
47
See, for example, Schorske, German Social Democracy 1905-1917: The Development of the
Great Schism, Groh, Negative Integration und revolutiondrer Attentismus; and Vernon L.
Lidke, The Alternative Culture: Socialist Labor in Imperial Germany (New York: Oxford UP,
1985).
218 Disappointment
increasingly irritated by the growing appeal of ethnonationalism, he spoke
of the "moral decay" of Germany's progressive forces in failing to provide
a unified front against militarism and imperialism. His articles reflected
his more sober attitude: "It is no use concealing the truth. The hold of
militarism on the German nation is depressingly great, and in the middle
classes it is certainly stronger than ever before."48 Perhaps it had begun to
dawn on Bernstein that the formation of a democratic left-liberal alliance
was impossible as long as the Kaiser and his chancellors were able tofinda
majority to pass the item that mattered most: the federal budget which
financed much of the armed forces.49 Indeed, the central theme that made
possible this consistent provision of support for the Empire after 1890 was
the lasting agreement of the entire non-socialist spectrum on the govern-
ment's nationalist Weltpolitik.
The outbreak of World War I in early August 1914 confirmed
Bernstein's worst fears concerning the likely consequences of the un-
diminished arms race and the escalation of Germany's economic protec-
tionism. Within days, the Second International - the allegedly "eternal
covenant of peace, freedom, and equality"50 - was buried under a feverish
wave of nationalist enthusiasm. Rather than rejecting what Karl Lieb-
knecht called the "imperialist war" of the "international clique of
capitalist oppressors," the leadership of the German labor movement
decided "not to abandon the fatherland in its hour of danger."51 Like
most of his comrades in the SPD, Bernstein was overwhelmed by the
frantic unfolding of events. To add to the confusion, the Imperial
Government did an excellent job of keeping crucial pieces of information
from the social democratic Reichstag representatives, thus depriving
Bernstein and his comrades of an accurate basis from which to judge the
true nature of the Russian and British war initiatives.
From July 31 to August 4, the party swayed between the extremes of
considering organized anti-war demonstrations and exuberantly uphol-
ding the "sacred cause of the German nation." SPD co-chairman Hugo
Haase and Karl Liebknecht pleaded with the party to reject the govern-
ment's request for war credits, thereby signaling to the Kaiser the SPD's
determined anti-war stance. However, the party's nationalist-revisionist
48
Eduard Bernstein, "The Meaning of the Strassburg Verdict," in The Nation 14 (January
17, 1914), p. 673.
49
Thomas Ertman, "Liberalization and Democratization in 19th and 20th-century
Germany in Comparative Perspective," paper prepared for the 1995 annual meeting of
the American Political Science Association, p. 23.
50
W i l h e l m L i e b k n e c h t , " V o r w o r t , " in Protokoll des Internationalen Arbeiter-Congresses zu
Paris. Abgehalten vom 14 bis 20 Juli 1889 ( N i i r n b e r g , 1 8 9 0 ) .
51
For the German Reichstag debates on the eve of World War I, see Verhandlungen des
Deutschen Reichtags, XIII Legislaturperiode, II Session, Bd. 306 (Berlin, 1919).
 The dawn of a new era 219
faction, represented by David, Cunow, Ebert, Noske, and Scheidemann,
prevailed. Their appealing slogans in favor of Germany's "right to its
territorial defense," the "destruction of Czarist despotism," and the
"defense of freedom and our German culture" resonated with the
majority of the party delegates. On August 4, 1914, the SPD leadership
came to the fateful decision in favor of war credits, thus officially signaling
its support for the government's war policies. The party subsequently
agreed to uphold a general social truce - a so-called Burgfrieden -
indicating the SPD's willingness to forgo its political opposition to their
non-socialist "class enemies" and its public criticism of the government
for the entire duration of the war.52
Tricked by Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg's secrecy
regarding the German invasion of neutral Belgium, and believing false
government assurances that Germany had issued its declaration of war
against Russia only to avert the invasion of East Prussia, Bernstein voted
with the party in favor of granting the war credits.53 It appears that his
pacifist outlook had been severely shaken by crushing reports of the
assassination of his much admired French comrade Jean Jaures, allegedly
murdered by an undercover agent of Czar Nicholas II. However, as more
information about the government's actual war policies leaked out,
Bernstein's attitude began to change, and he soon questioned Germany's
motives, arguing that in the 1870s even Marx and Engels had supported
Prussia's war against France only as long as it could be justifiably deemed
a "defensive war."54 Exhorting his SPD comrades to acknowledge the
aggressive nature of German war policy, he now looked back on his
decision to vote with the party in favor of the war credits as the "darkest
day" in his political life. Ten years later, he would confess to wishing that
the party had called a general strike, which, even if unsuccessful, would
have proven the labor movement's utmost efforts toward fulfilling its
moral duty of preventing an imperialist war.55
As early as October 1914, Bernstein was convinced of the German
government's war guilt, and he contacted Hugo Haase and Georg
Ledebour - both representatives of Kautsky's orthodox Marxism - in
order to work out a coherent anti-war position within the party. This
52
For an excellent treatment of the "Politics of August 4," see Susanne Miller, Burgfrieden
und Klassenkampf: Die Deutsche Sozialdemokratie im Ersten Weltkrieg (Diisseldorf: Droste,
1974); and Groh, Negative Integration und revolutiondrer Attentismus.
53
For a recent biography of Bethmann Hollweg, see Giinther Wollstein, Theobald von
Bethmann Hollweg: Letzter Erbe Bismarcks, erstes Opfer der Dolchstosslegende (Gottingen:
Muster- Schmidt, 1995).
54
Eduard Bernstein, "Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels in der zweiten Phase des Krieges von
1870/71," in NZ 33.1 (1914/15), pp. 76-80.
55
Bernstein cited in EB, p. 145.
220 Disappointment
dramatic change of attitude alienated Eduard David, one of Bernstein's
closest revisionist friends, and avid supporter of the German war effort.
Once again, Bernstein was left to fight the good fight on his own.
Protesting both the strident nationalist tone of Sozialistische Monatshefte
and Bloch's refusal to print his latest article against the government's
vicious anti-British propaganda, Bernstein resigned from the journal.
Given his fifteen years of dedicated service, including his fundraising
efforts and intellectual contributions, this break was truly extraordi-
nary.56
As Susanne Miller has pointed out, by late 1914, Bernstein's anti-war
position was firm, based upon his rejection of the government's open
desire for annexation, its brutal method of warfare, and its deceptive
strategy of selling the German people on aggression and expansionism by
presenting these in the guise of a "defensive war" thrust upon the nation
from without.57 Throughout 1915, he supported a quick end to the war
and established close contact with members of the "New Fatherland
Association," a non-partisan, international organization actively pursuing
peace issues, the improvement of international communication, and
global democratization. With sister organizations in several European
countries, like the British "Cobden Club" and the "Union for Demo-
cratic Control," Bernstein and the "New Fatherland Association" also
attracted other pacifist intellectuals, like Lujo Brentano and Albert
Einstein, and networked with prominent British war dissenters like
Ramsay MacDonald, Charles James Fox, John Bright, and Henry
Campbell-Bannerman.
The dramatic impact of a fully mechanized world war waged in the
name of nationalism achieved what years of theoretical dispute seemed to
have separated forever: a renewal of the bonds between the ageing
veterans, Bernstein and Kautsky. Already in 1912, the former "socialist
twins" had resumed their correspondence; three years later, their renewed
affiliation bore itsfirstintellectual fruits in the formulation of their "Peace
Manifesto," published in June 1915 in the Leipziger Volkszeitung. Entitled
"The Need of the Hour," the widely read document was also signed by
Hugo Haase. Using radical humanist language, the authors indicted the
cruelty of modern warfare, German expansionism, and the deceptive
tactics of the Imperial Government. Implicit in the manifesto was
Bernstein's strong challenge to the party's Praktikerfraktion to cancel the
56
See Bernstein's correspondence with Joseph Bloch and Wolfgang Heine in Dieter Fricke,
"Zum Bruch Eduard Bernsteins mit den 'Sozialistischen Monatsheften' im Herbst
1914," in BzG (1975/3), pp. 454-468.
57
Susanne Miller, "Bernstein's Political Position, 1914-1920," in Fletcher, Bernstein to
Brandt, p. 97.
 The dawn of a new era 221
Burgfrieden with the government and abstain from or vote against war
credits in the future.58
The SPD's Parliamentary Committee reacted to the document by
commissioning both Bernstein and David with drafting official guidelines
about the party's war and foreign-policy objectives. Based upon the
cardinal principles of the Second International, the right to national
self-determination, and the rejection of Germany's aggressive war policy-
including an open renunciation of any German annexationist demands -
Bernstein's draft clearly reflected the minority view. A full two-thirds of
the party delegates not only adopted David's nationalist "Peace Mani-
festo," which justified the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine and rejected
reparation payments to a neutral Belgium, but also added an amendment
disapproving of the restoration of a sovereign Belgium after the end of
war. Thus, the majority of the SPD's parliamentary Fraktion formalized
the party's ideological polarization on the war issue which would split the
labor movement a few months later.
Increasingly pushed toward the radical Left by the unremittingly
nationalist position of the SPD leadership, Bernstein began to assume a
pivotal position in the party's growing anti-war faction. As Kautsky put it,
Bernstein, who had always supported "civic" or "liberal" forms of
nationalism, became the "standard bearer of the internationalist idea in
German social democracy."59 Between the crucial years of 1915 and
1917, Bernstein's literary output reached unprecedented proportions.
Completing political pamphlets and articles on the International Work-
ingmen's Association, foreign policy, Zionism, and nationalism, his
writings often failed to elude the iron grip of the imperial censor.60 Indeed,
he struggled hard with the seemingly impossible task of criticizing the
government without disclosing the full thrust of his arguments.
Bernstein's attitude toward Zionism as a national movement also
changed significantly during the war years. Although he had always
rejected anti-Semitism from an ethically based, humanitarian point of
view, he had also disapproved of Zionism as "a kind of intoxication
which acts like an epidemic .. . [T]his is reason enough for social
democracy to take it seriously and to criticize it from the bottom up." 61
Pressing questions of national self-determination coupled with extreme

58
Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kausky, and Hugo Haase, "Das Gebot der Stunde," in Leipziger
Volkszeitung (June 19, 1915).
59
Kautsky, "Eduard Bernstein," p. 47.
60
See, for example, Eduard Bernstein, Die Internationale derArbeiterklasse und der europdische
Krieg (Tubingen: Mohr, 1915); Sozialdemokratische Volkerpolitik; and Von der Aufgabe der
Juden im Weltkriege (Berlin: Reiss, 1917).
61
Eduard Bernstein, "Der Schulstreit in Palastina," in NZ 32.1 (1913/14), p. 752.
222 Disappointment
displays of anti-Semitism which were raised in the context of the war, led
Bernstein to support the concept of national autonomy for Jews in
individual European countries, and to consider a "civic" Jewish national-
ism as reconcilable with modern democratic ideas of self-determina-
tion.62 But while he continued to disavow the strongly exclusivist streak
running through the Zionist cause, he also argued that the history of
European Jewry had made them "born pacifists" and the true mediators
among the peoples of the world.63 On this point, he held fast to his earlier
idealistic belief that the truest and noblest mission of the Jewish people
consisted in working for the universalist goals of peace and international
cooperation.
Although he began to cultivate a relationship with the Labor Zionist
Movement during the war, it was only in the late 1920s - after his niece,
Lily Zadek, had emigrated to Palestine - that Bernstein became openly
sympathetic to Zionist settlers in the Middle East, admiring their
cooperative social framework and their pioneering zeal.64 Joining several
Zionist labor organizations, he attempted to use his influence to have
pro-Zionist material published in the German social democratic press.65
Gradually he gained a favorable reputation among Zionist activists, and
was even approached by prominent Jewish leaders like David Ben-Gurion
to use his political clout with English politicians to prevent the British
Government from suspending Jewish immigration to Palestine.66
In 1916, the increasingly chauvinistic and anti-Semitic SPD leadership
drew the ultimate consequences of worsening intra-party disputes by
expelling Hugo Haase and his "pacifist Jewish Gang" from the parliamen-
tary Fraktion. Almost immediately, Haase embarked on the creation of a
separate socialist organization - the "Social Democratic Association" -
which ultimately led to the founding of a new "Independent" Social
Democratic Party (USPD), a curious mix of left-wing revolutionaries,
Marxist internationalists, anti-war centrists, and a few ethical socialists.
Though he had always supported party unity, Bernstein arrived at a
decision he hoped he would never have to make. After agonizing weeks of
fruitless mediation efforts, he hesitantly joined the breakaway party.
Though opposing a number of revolutionary principles in the USPD
platform, he fully agreed with its peace aims and felt that the new party
62
See Robert S. Wistrich, Revolutionary Jews from Marx to Trotsky (New York: Barnes and
Noble, 1976), p. 72; and Jacobs, On Socialists and "The Jewish Question" after Marx, pp.
44-70.
63
Eduard Bernstein, "Vom Patriotismus der Juden," Die Friedenswarte 18 (1916), p. 248;
Von den Aufgaben der Juden im Weltkriege, p. 8.
64
Bernstein A, BIO.
65
S e e J a c o b , On Socialists and e<The Jewish Question" after Marx, p . 6 5 .
66
Wistrich, Revolutionary Jews from Marx to Trotsky, p. 74.
 The dawn of a new era 223
offered him a more appropriate political context for propagating his
anti-war stance.
In March 1918, Bernstein risked his personal freedom by delivering one
of his most memorable speeches in the Reichstag, a sharp rebuke against
the government's repugnant war policies that included massive violations
of international law, the engagment in an unprecedented series of
submarine attacks on civilian vessels, and the unwillingness to consider
comprehensive peace proposals.67 Repeatedly interrupted and shouted
down by nationalist social democrats, Liberals, and Conservative parlia-
mentarians, an unfazed Bernstein calmly finished his denunciation of
"official" German war policy. Unfortunately, it would take another eight
months and millions of lost lives before the Great War wouldfinallycome
to an end.

Revolution and early Weimar years

The tumultuous months from November 1918 to February 1919 were a
time in which the main political protagonists of the fledgling Weimar
Republic struggled in vain to find a way between tradition and privilege,
old authoritarianism and new forms of radicalism, reaction and revol-
ution.68 With revolutionary workers' and soldiers' councils springing up
all over Germany, Bernstein stuck to his vision of evolutionary socialism,
presenting to a large public his reformist ideas in favor of a new, truly
representative, parliamentary order. For example, in his well-attended
lecture "What is Socialism," held in Berlin on December 28, 1918,
Bernstein reaffirmed his devotion to liberal democracy, universal suffrage,
and democratic forms of economic production as "preconditions" for the
extension of the "socialist principle" and the creation of a democratic
socialist republic.69 True to his principles of free trade and international
cooperation, he also announced his support for US President Woodrow
Wilson's League of Nations - as long as it was understood that the charter
of such an international body formally acknowledged the necessary
67
For a brief summary of Bernstein's speech, see Berlau, The German Social Democratic
Party 1914-1921, pp. 149-150.
68
For a history of German social democracy after 1918, see Richard N. Hunt, German Social
Democracy 1918-1933 (New Haven: Yale UP, 1964);W.L. Guttsman, The German Social
Democratic Party 1875-1933 (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981); R. Breitman,
German Socialism and Weimar Democracy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, 1981); and Heinrich August Winkler, Von der Revolution zur Stabilisierung: Arbeiter
undArbeiterbewegungin der Weimarer Republik, 1918 bis 1924 (Berlin-Bonn: DietzNachf.,
1984), and Der Schein der Normalitdt. Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung in der Weimarer
Republik, 1924- 1930 (Berlin-Bonn: Dietz Nachf., 1985).
69
E d u a r d Bernstein, " W a s ist Sozialismus?," in H i r s c h , Ein revisionistisches Sozialismusbild,
pp. 137-167.
224 Disappointment
imperative for "the expansion of democracy in all member states, based
on the rule of law and national self-determination."70
Using the political clout of his new governmental position as Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury in the First Provisional Weimar Government,
Bernstein once again chose the thankless role of mediator, this time urging
delegates of the SPD and the USPD to reconcile their differences for the
sake of building a united labor movement in the new republic. He spent
long hours hammering out a possible socialist "compromise position"
only to discover that the warring factions were not yet ready to make
peace. When, on January 19, 1919, the newly elected National Assembly
met in the Berlin Reichstag for thefirsttime, Bernstein was conspicuously
absent. Attempting to set a last symbolic example for socialist reconcili-
ation, he had reapplied for membership in the SPD without giving up his
membership in the USPD. Forced to choose between a bureaucratized
party of Praktiker with nationalist leanings and an increasingly Bolshevist-
sounding USPD, Bernstein decided in favor of the SPD. Having set
himself the task of helping to establish a politically stable democratic
republic, he felt that his period of war-time opposition had come to an
end. As a result, he forfeited his secure USPD parliamentary seat and
returned to a party whose leaders were less than eager to welcome their
harsh wartime critic back.
This short period of absence from political office allowed Bernstein to
write and lecture extensively on economic issues, particularly regarding
the possible wholesale nationalization of private industry. Wary of radical
slogans demanding the "immediate socialization of German industry"
and repeatedly pointing to the "chilling Bolshevik experiment," he
warned against council rule and argued that a socialization of production
was no panacea but needed to be applied selectively on a case-by-case
basis so as not to endanger the necessary recovery of Germany's national
economy. Chapter 9 will discuss Bernstein's attitude toward Bolshevism
in more detail.
Predicting the perseverance of a "mixed economy" for many years to
come, Bernstein was convinced that many features of capitalist ownership
had to be retained. Emphasizing the perils of "industrial centralization,"
he warned against the installation of a powerful state bureaucracy. Over
and over again, he pointed to Germany's dire economic situation and its
political and social fragmentation, calling once again for the formation of a
broadly based "democratic bloc" linking the SPD and all bourgeois-
republican parties - even in the hypothetical case of an absolute majority
for the SPD in future elections.71
70
Eduard Bernstein, Volkerbund oder Staatenbund? (Berlin: Cassirer, 1919), pp. 23-26.
71
ES, p. 55.
 The dawn of a new era 225
When the Spartakus Uprising occurred in early January 1919, Be-
rnstein was forced to watch the horrible spectacle of thousands of workers
clashing with each other on the streets. Seeking close contact with Hugo
Haase and other USPD leaders, he pleaded with Ebert and Scheidemann
to use their political influence to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
But the hard-nosed strategy of SPD Interior Minister Gustav Noske only
exacerbated the situation, for he clearly condoned the terrible acts of
violence committed byright-wingparamilitary groups against the "Spar-
tacist criminals." Within a few days, Noske's notorious police units - in
part comprised of members of the ultra-nationalist Freikorps - quelled the
insurrection by brute force, including the heinous murders of Rosa
Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht. Bernstein's vehement protests and his
disavowal of Noske's brutal methods found little resonance in an SPD
fighting, as Noske saw it, for its very political survival against a "German
Bolshevism."
Exasperated, Bernstein withdrew from the fray and returned to his
literary projects, completing a number of important studies within a
period of only eighteen months. First, there were his important works on
conflict resolution, international law and the League of Nations.72 Next,
he finished his celebrated historical study of the events surrounding the
birth of the Weimar Republic, entitled The German Revolution: Its Origins,
Events and Results.13 Serving as an impressive model for succeeding
historians of the early Weimar period, this book represented the first
detailed illustration of the events leading from the German collapse on the
Western Front in the late summer of 1918 to the January 1919 Reichstag
elections. And lastly, he published The Essence of Economics and Economic
Development, a popular introduction to socialist economics.74
In the Spring semester of 1921, Bernstein accepted a generous offer
from the University of Berlin's Division of Social Science to lead a
graduate seminar in political and social theory entitled, "Controversial
Issues in Socialism: Past and Present." Compiled and published in his
1921 book, Socialism Past and Present, these lectures forged his liberal-
socialist arguments into more coherent formulations than ever before.
Bernstein himself recognized that the study best reflected his "mature
revisionism," noting that, "Some chapters only repeat in different form
issues and problems that I have presented in previous studies and which
are no longer disputed in socialist literature. However, other chapters
72
Volkerrecht und Volkerpolitik, Weseny Fragen, undZukunft des Volkerrechts (Berlin: Cassirer,
1919); Volkerbund oder Staatenbund?; and Der Volkerbund (Basel: Verlag der National-
Zeitung, 1919).
73
Eduard Bernstein, Die Deutsche Revolution (Berlin: Gesellschaft & Erziehung, 1921).
74
E d u a r d B e r n s t e i n , Wirtschaftswesen und Wirtschaftswerden: Drei gemeinverstdndliche Ab-
handlungen (Berlin: Vorwarts, 1920).
226 Disappointment
distinguish themselves sharply from my early writings through a more
coherent conceptual construction and a more definitive formulation of
ideas."75
Socialism Past and Present revisits the most significant problems of
socialist theory from the 1870s to 1918 - the relationship between
Marxism and science, class theory, the philosophy of history, representa-
tive democracy, state theory, and the labor theory of value. The book's
underlying theme remained the modification of the old Aristotelian ideal
of a "middle way" to the model of evolutionary socialism: the firm
insistence on liberal socialist principles designed to avoid the extremes of
both metaphysical utopianism and instrumentalist reformism: "Socialists
. . . must safeguard against two things: getting lost in utopianism or falling
prey to pusillanimity."76

The 1921 Gorlitz Party Program

Having achieved governing responsibility in the young German Republic,
many SPD leaders felt that the time had come to work out a new party
platform which, almost thirty years after the Erfurt Program, would reflect
the changed social and political situation of post-war Germany. Even
Kautsky conceded: "[T]he [1918-19] revolution has created a complete-
ly new situation which has put an entirely different face on our tactical
considerations."77 Major criticism of the old program concerned its
theoretical portion, written by Kautsky himself, who, as an active member
of the USPD, had no part in drafting the new Gorlitz Program.
Bernstein's revisionist critique directed at the "unempirical character" of
Kautsky's orthodox Marxist model (which only twenty years before had
unsettled the vast majority of the party members) was now not only taken
for granted but regarded as a necessary underpinning for any future party
program. In 1920, after initiating lengthy debates on the character of its
new program, the SPD's Executive Committee entrusted a newly formed
Program Commission with the task of producing a first draft. Dividing
this task into twelve subcommissions, each dealing with a specific area, the
members of the Program Committee periodically opened their proceed-
ings to regional and local party organizations and other members of the
party, inviting their input.
Still resenting Bernstein's anti-war stance and his "abandonment of the
party," some members of the Executive Committee sought to prevent his
election to the Program Committee. Although managing to deny him the
75
ES, pp. 52-53.
76
Bernstein, Sozialismus Einst undjetzt, p. 144.
77
Kautsky, "Karl Kautsky," in Meiner, Die Volkswirtschaftlehre, p. 20.
 The dawn of a new era 227
chairmanship of the committee, his opponents could not prevent him
from getting elected. To no one's surprise, Bernstein exerted the most
influence on the formulation of the new program's revisionist language.
While thefinaldraft of the Gorlitz Program still retained a good number of
Marxist categories, it nonetheless represented, as Neue Zeit editor,
Heinrich Cunow, put it, afirststep towards "leaving behind the outdated
traditions and party formulas . . . and entering] new paths of develop-
ment."78 Most Program Committee members honored Bernstein's expe-
rience and seniority, ultimately commissioning him with writing a general,
"popular" commentary on the new program. Directed at ordinary party
members, his Commentary on the Gorlitz Party Program ultimately served
as the SPD's official introductory pamphlet.79
Bernstein lost no time in addressing the difference between the old
Erfurt Program and its new version. As anticipated in his 1909 "Guiding
Principles for the Theoretical Portion of a Social Democratic Party
Program," the "Gorlitz Program only refers to actual conditions . . . It
does not predict the future but only describes that which has actually
come into being."80 As expected, Bernstein emphasized the importance
of a piecemeal reformism in exerting important social controls on the
capitalist system: "The coordinated actions of unionized workers together
with the pressure of socialist parties on legislation and public administra-
tion increasingly limits the dictatorship of capital."81 Ultimately, the
Gorlitz Program reflected the SPD's strong commitment to representa-
tive, liberal democracy as the structure of government "irrevocably given
by historical development." Bernstein's liberal language of rights, seem-
ingly invoking Lassalle's commitment to the "democratic principle" in
socialism, found its way into the program in a striking passage stating that
social democracy would consider "every assault on it [the democratic
republic] as an attempt on the vital rights of the people."82 In this passage,
Bernstein explicitly referred to, "The enemies of democracy from the Left
who fantasize that a council system according to the Russian model will
lead to a dictatorship of the proletariat that will realize a socialist society in
the fastest and most reliable way possible."83
In theory, factory councils were defended by Marxist revolutionaries as
78
Heinrich Cunow, "Die geschichtliche Bedeutung des Erfurter [sic] Parteitags" NZ 40.2
(1921), pp. 25-30.
79
E d u a r d B e r n s t e i n , Das Gorlitzer Programm der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands
(Berlin: Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften, 1922).
80
Ibid., pp. 17,20.
81
Ibid., p . 2 8 .
82
Gorlitz Party Program in "Programme of the Social Democratic Party of Germany," in
S u s a n n e Miller, A History of German Social Democracy: From 1848 to the Present, p . 2 5 4 .
83
B e r n s t e i n , Das Gorlitzer Programm der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands, p . 3 2 .
228 Disappointment
instruments of "direct democracy," dispensing with a professional
bureaucracy and encouraging voters to recall their deputies at any time.
However, by 1921, the obvious failure of the most prominent example of a
council system - Lenin's Soviets - became painfully apparent. Firmly
rejecting a "Russian solution" for Germany, Bernstein and most of his
SPD comrades considered the survival of privately owned large-scale
industry in post-war Germany as an inevitable precondition for jumpstart-
ing the war-ravaged German economy. Thus, he reacted strongly against
USPD radicals and the revolutionary demands of the leaders of the newly
founded German Communist Party (KPD), who insisted on decentra-
lized workers' councils as the sole "authentic" democratic-socialist
configuration of political and economic power. The Gorlitz Party Pro-
gram considered such councils merely as transitory caretaker organiz-
ations which would provide temporary relief and workers' solidarity in the
chaotic months following the Great War.
Reflecting on the "transition question" almost twenty-five years after
the Revisionist Controversy, Bernstein still maintained that immediate
socialization of the private enterprise system and the expropriation of
industrial and rural property would lead to a general breakdown of
economic activity and mass unemployment. Although he acknowledged
the importance of the socialization of certain branches of production,
Bernstein realistically pointed to the general dependence of the national
economy on private enterprises and other forms of profit-making organiz-
ations. The council system's challenge to the strong political organiz-
ations of the bourgeoisie and the farmers as well as to the legal framework
underlying private property would, in his opinion, eventually lead Ger-
many down the path to a bloody civil war similar to that which had taken
place in Russia.84
In spite of Bernstein's leadership, however, the new program still
remained somewhat ambiguous in its ideological character. Some pas-
sages seemed to encourage social democracy's slow metamorphosis from
an exclusive class party to a comprehensive people's party, while others
clung to the familiar Marxist language. While the Program Committee
deliberately sought to maintain the party's appeal to the industrial working
class, it also made barely veiled overtures to the "new middle classes,"
reflected in the deletion of militant phrases and the insertion of the terms
"working people" and "producing masses" instead of the familiar
"proletariat." The new program also ostensibly underscored the role of
trade unions in moving society toward socialism by securing higher wages
through collective bargaining and further shortening of the workday.
84
Ibid., p. 33.
 The dawn of a new era 229
Praising its alleged commitment to the path of social reform, Bern-
stein's commentary made the program appear in a much better light.
Indeed, he dealt with the systemic limitations to its evolutionary frame-
work only in passing, hardly mentioning that the current economic crisis,
together with the onus of Germany's war reparation payments, was
severely curtailing the potential for social reforms. While the KPD hailed
Germany's economic woes as a welcome sign of the approaching
breakdown of the "bourgeois-capitalist" state, mainstream social demo-
crats faced the more difficult task of rebuilding society and constructing a
functioning "social market economy."
Unexpectedly, the Gorlitz Program turned out to be the shortest-lived
party program in the history of the SPD. Only a year later, the anti-
Bolshevik faction of the USPD reunited with the SPD, asking the party to
commission a new compromise program. Although Bernstein was again
invited to join the drafting commission, his influence this time was only
modest. Wary of the strong appeal of the KPD and willing to make minor
ideological concessions to its new USPD members, the party returned to
its pre-war arrangement of "uniting the working class," reluctantly
accepting Kautsky's more orthodox-Marxist ideas as the basis of the new
1925 Heidelberg Program. Thus, the SPD continued the old incongru-
ence between Marxist theory and reformist practice which had been
successfully perpetuated by the Praktiker.
Though confronted with the harsh social and economic realities of
Weimar Germany, Bernstein clung to his evolutionary vision of a
constructive replacement of parts of the capitalist system with those
embodying socialist principles. Had he not learned a painful lesson in the
last decade? How could he even dream that SPD Praktiker - manifesta-
tions of the instrumentalist logic of maximizing votes by catering to the
often "unsocialistic" demands of an eclectic mass electorate - would even
consider his socialist core principles? Was he not aware of the existence of
severe structural constraints to economic reform under Weimar condi-
tions which not only curbed the pace and extent of socialist reformism but
might even result in the reversal of previous advances? The last ten years of
Bernstein's life, spent within Germany's fragile democratic framework,
represent an instructive example of the intrinsic difficulties in linking
socialist theory, ethical imperatives, and reformist practice.
 Bernstein's final battle: confronting socialist
instrumentalism

The dynamics of social change in the Weimar Republic:

the theory-practice problem revisited
One would think that the moral disaster of the Great War and the
fundamentally changed political conditions in post-war Germany gave
the German labor movement the perfect opportunityfinallyto embrace a
consequent reformist ideology based on ethical socialist principles. Such
an initiative would have allowed social democracy to close the old
theory-practice gap that had plagued the movement for the past forty
years. In fact, there was no dearth of sophisticated reformist-socialist
theories developed by a new generation of capable social democratic
intellectuals, including distinguished thinkers like Eduard Heimann,
Hermann Heller, Leonard Nelson, Hendrik de Man, Paul Tillich, Emil
Lederer, and Fritz Naphtali. Though distinct in their intellectual ap-
proaches, their conceptual framework was clearly rooted in the intellec-
tual soil of Bernstein's evolutionary socialism.1
The harsh political realities of the young Weimar Republic, however,
pushed the SPD onto a fundamentally different path. On the surface, of
course, social democracy could justifiably claim to have played a crucial
role in producing a new democratic constitution that enshrined genuine
parliamentarianism and basic political liberties, thus ending long decades
of imperial authoritarianism. Yet underneath this freshly painted layer of
formal democracy there remained the thick brick wall of the traditional
German hierarchical state (Obrigkeitsstaat), pervaded by a strongly anti-
democratic political culture. The political values and attitudes of many
Germans were often at odds with solid republican values, and the
traditionalist mentality and patterns of behavior persisted to a high degree
even after the war years.

1
For a brief introduction to the main ideas of these theorists, see Thomas Meyer,
"Elemente einer Gesamttheorie des Demokratischen Sozialismus und Hinderung ihrer
Durchsetzung in der Weimarer Republik," in Horst Heimann and Thomas Meyer, eds.
Reformsozialismus und Sozialdemokratie (Berlin: Dietz, 1982), pp. 413-440.

230
 Bernstein'sfinalbattle 231
While the Weimar SPD could present itself as the chief defender of the
country's new democratic system, it failed miserably in the necessary task
of weakening the powerful influence of the army, state bureaucrats, and
large-scale industrialists on German society. Already before the end of the
war, Friedrich Ebert, the First Chairman of the Majority Socialists
(MSPD), concluded an informal alliance with General Wilhelm Groener,
who represented the army and the old ruling elites. The leading industrial-
ist, Hugo Stinnes, and trade-union boss, Carl Legien, proceeded to create
the "Central Working Alliance" with the obvious goal of keeping
organized labor in its place.2 These pacts were designed to provide the
new social democratic government with some legitimacy by creating the
appearance of the maintenance of "public order" in the critical period
preceding the first elections. Many social democrats considered these
deals unavoidable, fearing that returning soldiers and mass unemploy-
ment might otherwise lead to widespread disorder and a possible
Bolshevik-style take-over.
As Hans-Ulrich Wehler notes, the entire "socialist" leadership of the
MSPD perceived "the liberating discontinuity of the revolution mainly as
a threat."3 With this glaring handicap of failure to carry out a radical
reform of the state, its personnel and its institutions, the likelihood that a
functioning democratic system would emerge in Germany was extremely
low. These powerful continuities at work in German political history were
also apparent in the blueprint of the new Weimar Constitution, which
reintroduced the old constitutional dualism in the form of a mixed
parliamentary-presidential system of rule, thus predisposing the new
republic to a spirit of political contentiousness and instability.
Finally, falling short of a comprehensive overhaul of its old theoretical
edifice along the lines of a genuine "liberal socialism" that might have
breathed new life into its increasingly bureaucratized pragmatism, Ger-
man social democracy proved itself incapable of generating the necessary
emotional drive and mass support for its fragile "socialist republic." The
long-overdue 1921 revision of the old Erfurt Party Program had merely
amounted to a necessary, but not sufficient, first instalment. In fact, the
SPD took a step backward when it replaced the Gorlitz Program with the
more Marxist 1925 Heidelberg Program.
To be sure, the task of ideological renewal was not an easy undertaking
for a German labor movement which in some crucial respects resembled
Plato's fabled many-headed creature. Sharing governing responsibility
and thus forced to occupy itself with the most immediate problems of the
day, the SPD found itself enmeshed in the chronic woes of Germany's
2
Wehler, The German Empire, pp. 224-225.
3
Ibid., p. 226.
232 Disappointment
war-torn, sputtering economy. The persisting intra-labor conflicts dra-
matically worsened after the founding of the Moscow-oriented German
Communist Party, and soon an openly anti-democratic, catch-all
"people's party" of the Right began to capture the nationalist resentment
of a vanquished nation. Caught between the undemocratic extremism of
both the Left and the Right, the party's theoretical manoeuverability was
additionally curtailed by a public mood identifying parliamentarism with
humility and defeat - a phenomenon that retarded the much-needed
reorientation of socialist theory. To a large degree, these developments
explain why the leaders of the Weimar SPD regarded fundamental
theoretical debates as an ill-affordable luxury that, in addition,
threatened to expose the political heterogeneity of the German labor
movement.
Though the immediate political effects of Bernstein's post-war contri-
butions to socialist theory were fairly modest, the ageing revisionist
remained a vociferous critic of the fatigued Weimar socialism.4 His
perceptive commentaries on the politics of the SPD centered on the
party's confusing plans regarding the overall direction and pace of social
change in Germany. While his previously unsuccessful calls for temporary
alliances with various bourgeois parties were finally heeded, the old Left's
resistance against "opportunist" coalitions with the Liberals - like the
newly organized German Democratic Party - remained too strong to
overcome the old climate of mutual distrust.
However, there was indeed some tactical merit in the arguments of
those orthodox voices that warned against the dangers of a wholesale
abandonment of Marxist theory. After all, how could the SPD retain both
its circumscribed self-image of a working class party and its ideological
commitment to end capitalism within a new pluralist framework of
competitive interest-group politics? Putting their fingers on the Left's
persisting divergence of theory and practice, Marxist critics could also
provide a powerful explanation for the impotence of Bernstein's evol-
utionary socialism in the face of an increasingly instrumental tendency in
the party. Most importantly, they grasped why his pioneering reconcep-
tualization of socialism had become the pragmatic foundation of the cross
on which his admirable ethical principles were crucified. Deprived of its
teleological guarantees and its emphasis on seeing the capitalist produc-
tion process replaced by a "liberaP'ethic of redistribution, socialism was
transformed into a merely regulative idea designed to guide reformist
practice toward the uncertain achievement of greater social justice within
the existing capitalist order. Losing the absoluteness of Marx's historicist
4
See Heinrich August Winkler, "Eduard Bernstein as Critic of Weimar Social Democ-
racy," in Fletcher, Bernstein to Brandt, pp. 167-183.
 Bernstein's final battle 233
objectivism, meant that social democracy was forced to rely upon its
leadership's subjectivist "will to socialism" for the implementation of its
sociopolitical objectives.
But as the history of the Weimar Republic shows, the reformist logic
emerging from Bernstein's discreditation of Marx's metaphysical telos did
not automatically translate into his ethical socialism; reformism was also
perfectly compatible with the instrumental intentions of the party Prak-
tiker. In the name of Bernstein's non-metaphysical, "level-headed prag-
matism" oriented toward the "daily tasks of the movement," the Praktiker
continued in their pre-war course, determined to support a process of
political decision-making defined solely by political exigency. Without so
much as a peremptory nod toward Bernstein's ethical criticism, their
one-dimensional critique subordinated the "abstract principles" of politi-
cal morality to the instrumental concerns of dispensing immediate
material benefits to constituencies, thus furthering the SPD's organiza-
tional expansion.5
The celebrated achievement of representative democracy in Weimar
was therefore a double-edged sword: while ushering in an unprecedented
era of political freedom in Germany, it also bound social democracy even
closer to the electoral concerns of modern political parties operating in
competitive environments. Though the rapid socioeconomic changes
occurring in the 1920s clearly confirmed Bernstein's early revisionist
theses regarding the increasingly stratified and complex social structure of
advanced capitalism, the working class represented only a minority of the
electorate, its share steadily declining after 1912.6 Conversely, members
of the "new middle classes" increased their political influence. The only
problem was that they hardly conceived of themselves as oppressed
members of the industrial proletariat. Caught in the dynamics of social
change, the German labor movement faced the strategic dilemma of
either maintaining its class appeal by satisfying the needs of its core
constituents, or playing to the different interests of a diverse middle class.
What was to be done? One option was a full-scale retreat to a purist
Marxist position which would have led to a further fragmentation of the
labor movement (Luxemburg). The second option would have demanded
the party's assent to Bolshevik insurrectionism based on the conception of
"Soviet socialism" (Klara Zetkin, August Thalheimer). The third alterna-
tive would have been the party's unambiguous acknowledgment of the
binding character of a non-Marxist program of democratic socialism for a
reformist political practice (Bernstein). No matter which option the SPD
would ultimately select, the choice was between remaining a relatively
5
See Bronner, "Bernstein and the Logic of Revisionism," in Socialism Unbound^ pp. 53-75.
6
Przeworski, Capitalism and Social Democracy', pp. 23-24.
234 Disappointment
small, homogeneous labor party with great internal cohesion facing
perpetual electoral defeats or broadening the party's electoral appeal at
the cost of watering down traditional socialist principles, be they Marxist-
revolutionary or Bernsteinian-evolutionary. After all, if socialist strategy
was reduced to pure electoral tactics, social democracy risked the survival
of its very political identity, reflected in its long-term objectives aimed at
transforming the existing capitalistic system.
Having long hitched its political practice to the logic of parliamentary
democracy, the SPD remained passive, thus trying to play it both ways. As
a result, it lost both its principles (the only weapon with which instrumen-
talism and bureaucratic rigidification could be fought) and its core
constituency. This meant that the most formidable challenge facing
Weimar social democracy was not the stark choice between total revol-
ution and piecemeal reforms, but how to balance the inescapable tactical
imperatives with socialist principles. The party's passivity also under-
mined further the crucial role of theory to serve as the indispensible means
of critical self-reflection. Despite the drafting of two new party programs,
Weimar social democracy witnessed but few fundamental debates on the
continued validity of old meaning structures. Rudolf Hilferding, the
SPD's new rising star, had made it abundantly clear that some Marxist
categories - including outdated expectations of a general capitalist
breakdown - were still very much part of the party's self-understanding,
albeit in a clearly ritualized form.7 At the same time, even Hilferding
realized that the youthful Marxist dreams of the labor movement had
given way to the harsh responsibilities of adulthood reflected in the party's
mature role as the republic's guardian of democracy and civil rights.
Unwilling to bear the risks involved in touching off new theoretical
debates, the party leadership tacitly agreed on ignoring social democracy's
many conflicting objectives deriving from the fundamental disjuncture
between ideological commitment and practical electoral concerns. As a
result, a good number of outdated Marxist slogans survived in the Weimar
SPD not because they commanded widespread support, but because
socialist theory no longer mattered. Suspending the binding force of
socialist principles for concrete political practice, the party leadership
seemed to be willing to risk drowning in its own short-term-oriented
instrumentalism.
Whether it was its conscious unwillingness to act upon any of these
options or sheer bureaucratic inertia, the fact remains that the SPD
condoned its rudderless drift on the stormy sea of Weimar politics, thus
alienating a good number of socialist intellectuals and activists. It quickly
7
Rudolf Hilferding in Protokolldes 1925 Heidelberg Parteitages (Berlin, 1925), pp. 273-279.
 Bernstein's final battle 235
eroded social democracy's remaining ideological appeal even within its
own constituency, not to speak of its failure to attract the "new middle
classes." The party's lack of conceptual clarity regarding the direction and
pace of social change explains its inability to strengthen the foothold of
political democracy in Weimar Germany.
Using Bernstein's evolutionary socialism for the liquidation of the
theoretical concerns under which an ethical political judgment becomes
possible,8 the Praktiker pursued a myopic course of "muddling through
the problems/' and remained mired in their characteristic political
half-measures, tactical reversals, and ideological ambiguities. Their in-
strumentalism poured oil onto the propagandistic fires unleashed by
Hitler to convince the electorate of the "inherent weakness" of parliamen-
tary democracy. Bernstein himself never agreed with their impoverished
notion of socialism as nothing more than a set of discrete reforms decided
upon by a self-serving elite of party technocrats. Criticizing the SPD's
"disquieting tendency to fall prey to the spirit of routine," he emphasized
that the socialist movement was depriving itself of the crucial theoretical
framework necessary for a consistent program of constructive reform.
Hence, he berated his party's tendency to forsake "larger, far-reaching
interests in favor of short-term advantages."9 Indeed, Bernstein's fre-
quent calls for a politics of compromise with the bourgeoisie were not
predicated simply on achieving the "best possible deal" for the SPD's
electoral constituency, but remained wedded to a coherent theoretical
edifice - evolutionary socialism - that emphasized the power of ideological
and ethical concerns:
The question of political tactics ... is in the last resort the eternal conflict between
the absolute and the relative method, which reveals itself in its countless
modifications throughout the history of the human race, in religion and politics, as
a constant source of intellectual estrangement. Absolutism is . . . the rejection of
compromise, the rigid consideration of questions from a strictly limited point of
view, whether they concern the omnipotence of a dynasty, the rule of an oligarchy
or the multitude, the interests of different classes, the validity of dogma, or the
principles of ethics. But for relativism one might just as well say liberalism,
inasmuch as this conception does not denote a party, but the tendency to
toleration and mediation, which means, if it is abused, vagueness, eagerness to
compromise, and opportunism. 10

Holding fast to his "socialist ideal," Bernstein doggedly defended the

critical role of a liberal-socialist theory for an ethical-reformist practice.
8
See Bronner, Socialism Unbound, p. 66.
9
Bernstein cited in Winkler, "Eduard Bernstein as Critic of Weimar Social Democracy," in
Fletcher, From Bernstein to Brandt, p. 176.
10
Bernstein, My Years of Exile, p. 273.
236 Disappointment
Regarding the question of the relationship of theory to practice, we frequently
encounter very pessimistic opinions. We often hear that practical behavior is
determined by interests, passions, and material circumstances. Moreover, there
are voices that consider the influence of theory on matters of practical politics and
social life to be infinitely small. I strongly disagree. .. [The influence of theory] is
especially strong in social classes which find themselves on the political ascent.11

Blanquist Marxism come true: Bernstein's critique of

Bolshevism
The surprisingly successful 1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the trauma of
the 1918-19 German Revolution prompted Bernstein to flesh out in
greater detail his earlier critique of the dangers of a mechanistic interpreta-
tion of Marxist socialism. In particular, he pointed to the connection
between some arguments of the early Marx and the insurrectionist
voluntarism of the Bolsheviks.12 Bernstein's meticulous research underly-
ing his study of the 1848 French revolution undertaken in 1895-96, and
his ensuing disapproval of "Blanquist methods," played a significant role
in his negative assessment of Bolshevism.13 Already in The Preconditions of
Socialism, he had criticized the "speculative element" in Marx's theory
which, in his opinion, had attempted to combine two incompatible
intellectual streams. One was "constructive," closely identified with
concrete proposals for reform, like the British "Ten Hour Bill"; the other,
originating in Auguste Blanqui's deification of revolutionary violence and
brute force and picked up by the young Marx in The Communist Manifesto,
Bernstein labeled as "destructive" and "demagogic."14
Underlying these two models of social change, Bernstein argued, were
two entirely opposed patterns of socioeconomic development: the former
was peacefully evolutionary, well suited for the modern conditions of
advanced capitalism; the latter reflected a conspiratorial-revolutionary
strategy which, starting with the Jacobin "reign of terror," had found its
expression in leftist manifestations of "dogmatic absolutism." Violence
and the Blanquist belief in quick revolutionary fixes were the basic
elements of a romantic gospel of force based on metaphysical ideas of
human perfection. By contrast, Bernstein viewed the evolutionary path as
intrinsically connected with the skeptical pragmatism of scientific re-
search, intellectual openness, and ethical liberalism. In a letter to the
11
Bernstein, Der Sozialismus Einst und Jetzt, p. 75.
12
Eduard Bernstein, Wie eine Revolution zugrunde ging (Stuttgart: Dietz, 1921).
13
Eduard Bernstein, "Mit einem Nachtrag: Vom Zweiten Kaiserreich bis zur Dritten
Republik," in Louis Heritier, Geschichte der franzosischen Revolution von 1848 und der
Zweiten Republik in volksthumlicher Darstellung, edited by E. Bernstein and W. Eichhoff
(Stuttgart, 1897).
14
PS, pp. 36-46.
 Bernstein's final battle 237
Italian socialist Antonio Labriola, he underscored this point: "If one
understands Marxism as a gospel, a ready-made edifice that cannot be
changed by new empirical evidence, then I am indeed one of the first
socialists bent on destroying it." 15 While Bernstein argued that Marx's
later writings clearly attempted to approach the principles of a "free, open
science," 16 he also insisted that the founders had never completely freed
themselves from the Blanquist point of view which grossly overestimated
"the creative power of revolutionary force for the socialist transformation
of modern society." 17 Consequently, by emphasizing the revolutionary
Marx of The Communist Manifesto, the Bolsheviks could actually claim
some Marxist legitimacy for their project, for, in Bernstein's opinion,
"Marx had a Bolshevik streak in him." 1 8
Together with his reclaimed friend Kautsky, Bernstein emerged as one
of the most cogent early critics of Bolshevism, expressing sentiments at the
time widely shared among German social democrats. Indeed, his devasta-
ting critique of Bolshevism appears almost prophetic:
The question of Bolshevism is for the German Revolution a question of life and
death. The Bolsheviks are the true counter-revolutionaries in Europe; they will kill
the socialist revolution. Their interpretation of Marxist theories on the dictator-
ship of the proletariat is absolutely false. They have known only how to create an
army commanded by the officers of the Tsar and intended to combat the will of the
people. Their rule is the rule of corruption . .. Germany had experience with it.
Bolshevism leads directly to the decadence of humanity.19
Bernstein defined Marxism-Leninism as the "attempt to apply early
Marxist formulas mechanistically to an underdeveloped society, thus
violating Marxism's mature, organic conception." 20 In other words, he
charged Lenin and his comrades with neglecting empirical economic
conditions in their "simplistic realization of Marxist teachings under
un-Marxist social conditions." 21 For Bernstein, Bolsheviks employed two
faulty strategies to legitimize their interpretation of Marxism: "First, they
fall back on The Communist Manifesto whose terse phrases date back to an
early period in which Marx and Engels enjoyed shocking the bourgeoisie.
15
Bernstein to Labriola, n.d., Bernstein A, C20.
16
Ibid.
17
PS, p. 41.
18
Bernstein cited in Hook, "Introduction," in Evolutionary Socialism, p. xvi.
19
Eduard Bernstein cited in Merle Fainsod, International Socialism and the World War (New
York: Octagon, 1973), p. 198.
20
Eduard Bernstein, "Die mechanistische und organische Idee der Revolutionsgewalt,"
n.d., Bernstein A, G55.
21
Eduard Bernstein, "Vorwort," in Noe Zhordaniya, Marxismus und Demokratie (Berlin:
Verlag Gesellschaft & Erziehung, 1921), p. 11. For Kautsky's arguments against
Marxism-Leninism, see Karl Kautsky, Kautsky gegen Lenin, edited by Peter Liibbe
(Berlin: Dietz, 1981).
238 Disappointment
Second, Bolshevism distorts Marx's later works by indulging in a vulgar
and crude reading." 22 Rather than sticking with the "spirit and principles
of [evolutionary] Marxism," the Bolsheviks were, in Bernstein's opinion,
in the process of establishing,
[A]n oppressive regime which mocks civilized cultural development. Preaching
the gospel of brutal force, they have embarked on a contradictory, botched
economic experiment, thus smothering the necessary productive impulses that
form the preconditions for lifting the people's living standard. Indeed, the
Bolsheviks have clearly gone backward.23
Although he must have known that even some passages of Marx's later
writings - like his famous line in volume I of Capital referring to "force" as
the "midwife of every old society pregnant with the new one" 24 - were
well suited for a Bolshevist interpretation of socialism, Bernstein pres-
ented the "real Marx" as the Darwinian evolutionist who, after all, had
declared that "current society is not a solid crystal, but a changing and
constantly transforming organism." 25 Shrewdly using Marx for the
legitimization of his own evolutionary socialism, Bernstein proceeded to
anchor Bolshevism in the Russian historical context of socialist anarchists
like Mikhail Bakunin and Sergei Nechaiev, whose irrationalism and
voluntarism seemed to conflict with the "rational socialism" of Marx and
Engels. 26
At the 1919 International Berne Conference of Labor, Bernstein raised
strong objections to identifying or equating Bolshevism with "democratic
socialism." Unwilling to hold back on this issue, his speech at the
conference turned into a early indictment of the political terror of the
Bolshevist regime:
The Bolshevist government was the first socialist regime that had peacefully
demonstrating workers shot down with machine guns. The Bolshevik government
was the first to simply lock up socialists of other persuasions - Socialists who are
not putschists, but who were robbed of theirrightsoutside the law and in breach of
the law, repeating in all this things previously done by reactionary governments. In
Russia Socialists, comrades who were at many international congresses and who
have fought for socialism all their lives, are locked up and robbed of their rights.. .
We need only to read the Bolsheviks' own reports, we need only to read their
government's own statistics on the state of finances and social life as a whole, to see
22
Bernstein, "Die bolschewistische Abart des Sozialismus," in Der Sozialismus Einst und
Jetzt, p. 117.
23
Bernstein, "Vorwort," in Zhordaniya, Marxismus und Demokratie,p. 11. See also, Eduard
Bernstein, "Bolshevism," n.d., Bernstein A, A36a.
24
C I, p. 751.
25
MEW 23, pp. 15-16.
26
Bernstein, "Die bolschewistische Abart des Sozialismus," in Der Sozialismus Einst und
Jetzt, pp. 113-125.
 Bernstein's final battle 239
that a rotten, fraudulent system is at the helm, a system that compromises itself
further by trying, after having bankrupted its own country, to pull other countries
into this bankruptcy.27

Two years later, Bernstein wrote the "The Bolshevist Brand of Social-
ism," an essay that represents his most coherent attempt to discredit
Marxism-Leninism by contrasting it with selected passages that showed
strong "evolutionary" inclinations in the political thought of Marx.
Critically unpacking some crucial passages from the writings of Lenin,
Trotsky, Bukharin and other leading Bolsheviks, he argued that their
instrumental understanding of the socialist transformation culminating in
the "revolutionary seizure of political power" failed to translate into a
socioeconomic framework that reflected ethical socialist principles. In
particular, Bernstein resented Trotsky and Bukharin's "idiotic" and
"dangerous" methods of "socialist education." Convinced that the
revolutionary end justified their ethically questionable means, the Bolshe-
vik leaders frequently familiarized uneducated Russian workers with a
version of "revolutionary Marxist socialism" replete with "simplistic
deductions and riddled with odd assertions regarding the causes and the
lasting consequences of the World War."28 Repeatedly, Bernstein warned
that coercive measures and the imposition of a subjectivist "will to
communism" on history would ultimately fail because Lenin's Russia
lacked the necessary political and economic preconditions for a demo-
cratic transition to social democracy.
Shuddering at the amount of human suffering involved in the Bolshevik
experiment, Bernstein expressed his solidarity with ordinary Russians,
"who already had to pay the price with the wanton sacrifice of countless
victims."29 Indeed, Bernstein's final rejection of Marxist-Leninist instru-
mentalism was based on a remarkable combination of economic consider-
ations and ethical conviction. In Kantian fashion, he refused to sacrifice
his moral principles to a Bolshevik socialism of "fantastic social plans and
speculative goals," insisting that: "Above all, even for the socialist
reformer or revolutionary, there is a categorical imperative!"30 By violat-
ing basic human rights, Lenin's political scheme had actually continued
the "old Russian tradition of Czarist despotism," for his political
methods, too, relied on the "unbridled terror of suppressing and silencing
dissent, a method commonly employed by Asian despots and African
27
Bernstein cited in John Riddell, ed. The German Revolution and the Debate on Soviet Power.
Documents: 1918-1919 (New York: Pathfinder, 1986), pp. 425-426.
28
Bernstein, "Die bolschewistische Abart des Sozialismus," in Der Sozialismus Einst und
Jetzt,, p. 120.
29
Ibid., p. 122.
30
Ibid., pp. 123, 121.
240 Disappointment
sultans."31 Thus, Bernstein's harsh final judgment on Soviet commu-
nism: "Bolshevism is the prime example of the baneful effects of an
erroneous theory, manifested as belief in the omnipotence of brute force,
blindness to fundamental social laws, and disregard for the evolutionary
principle guiding human beings from barbarism to civilization."32
But Bernstein's opposition to Marxism-Leninism was not confined to
debunking itsflawedtheoretical and moral foundations. In what might be
considered a masterpiece of investigative journalism, Bernstein - who as
Under-Secretary of the Treasury had had access to top-secret war
documents of the Imperial German government - unravelled the hidden
skein of German monetary support for the Russian Bolshevik party. In
1921, he published two short articles in Vorwdrts on this subject,
reporting that Lenin and his comrades had received vast sums of money
from the Kaiser's government for their destructive agitation.33 Though he
could not pin down the exact amounts involved or the full extent of the
interactions between Lenin and German government officials, Bernstein
was able to provide sufficiently specific details to make his reports
credible:
From absolutely reliable sources I have now ascertained that the sum was large,
certainly more than fifty million Gold marks, a sum about the source of which
Lenin and his comrades could be in no doubt. One result of all this was the
Brest-Litowsk Treaty. General Hoffmann, who negotiated with Trotsky and other
members of the Bolshevik delegation in Brest, held the Bolsheviks in his hands in
two senses, and he made sure they felt it.34
Bernstein openly challenged the German Communists and the Russian
Bolsheviks to take him to court if they thought he had libeled Lenin.
Predictably, however, the Central Committees of both parties maintained
their silence, virtually confirming Bernstein's assertions.35
In addition, Bernstein used his regained SPD seat in the Reichstag to
denounce Bolshevism publicly and its "German sister party." Pointing to
persistent and massive human rights violations committed by the Red
Army, which included mass executions without fair trial, he barked
angrily at his radical comrades on the Left: "Would you suggest we imitate
such policies in Germany?"36 When the Red Army marched into Georgia
in 1921, Bernstein drafted the SPD's official protest resolution demand-
ing the retreat of the Bolshevik troops and the release of Georgian social
31
Ibid., p. 124.
32
Ibid., p. 125.
33
Eduard Bernstein, "Ein dunkles Kapitel," in Vorwdrts (January 11, 1921).
34
Bernstein cited in Dmitri Volkagonov, Lenin (New York: The Free Press, 1994), pp.
122-123.
35
Ibid., p. 123.
36
Bernstein cited in EB, p. 176.
 Bernstein'sfinalbattle 241
37
democratic prisoners. The annexation of Georgia, together with the
Bolshevik misuse of funds provided by the USPD and SPD for the
catastrophic Russian famines in the summer of 1921, further contributed
to the increasing disillusion of German socialists with Lenin's authoritar-
ian regime.
In spite of his relentless opposition to Bolshevism, however, Bernstein
did not support the ugly Communist-baiting of his comrades
Scheidemann and Ebert.38 Indiscriminately labeling all left-wing social
democrats who disagreed with them "sympathizers of Bolshevism," the
two men reiterated throughout the early Weimar period that they hated all
"unpatriotic social revolutionaries like sin."39 Bernstein's criticism of
their persisting nationalist agenda remained equally harsh, reaching its
highest pitch during the hotly debated question of Germany's responsibil-
ity for the outbreak of the Great War.

Fighting the socialist right on the issue of German

war guilt
Nothing could gauge the full extent of the German labor movement's
instrumentalism more accurately than the SPD's calculated decision to
participate in the right-wing cynical manipulation of the nationalist
resentments of a vanquished nation for mostly electoral reasons. Weimar
social democratic leaders bore some responsibility for the lingering
"German Question" by doing little to debunk grotesque nationalist myths
like the so-called "encirclement theory" - because it resonated with a
large segment of the population. This effective piece of propaganda
originated with the Imperial Government's early efforts to convince
ordinary Germans that they had fallen prey to a well-organized interna-
tional conspiracy initiated by France and Britain long before 1914.
Few prominent social democrats possessed Bernstein's ethical commit-
ment or the intellectual honesty it took to denounce the hollowness of such
distorted slogans. Immediately after the war, he published a short, but
passionate monograph warning against the pervasiveness and resiliency of
the nationalist lies that had obscured the true origins of the hostilities.
Moreover, he sought to expose and embarrass the right-wing chauvinists
who were responsible for spreading the Dolchstosslegende - another highly
37
See Jiirgen Zarusky, Die deutschen Sozialdemokraten und das sowjetische Modell: Ideologische
Auseinandersetzungenund aussenpolitische Konzeptionen 1917-1933 (Munich: Oldenbourg,
1992), p. 139.
38
Eduard Bernstein, Was ist der Marxismus: Eine Antwort aufeine Hetze (Berlin: Vorwarts,
1924).
39
Scheidemann and Ebert cited in William H. Maehl, German Militarism and Socialism
(Lincoln: Nebraska Wesleyan Press, 1968), p. 180.
242 Disappointment
effective myth which claimed that defeatist social democratic politicians
had "stabbed the 'victorious' German troops in the back" by secretly
initiating premature peace negotiations with the Entente Powers.40
Now that the party had access to the voluminous state archives which
proved beyond a doubt that the main responsibility for the outbreak of the
war lay with the German Imperial Government, Bernstein admonished
the SPD to set the historical war record straight by indicting the war
policies of the Kaiser as well as admitting its own mistakes - like issuing his
tragic votes for the war credits. As Heinrich August Winkler has pointed
out, though Bernstein's challenge to the party was clearly morally based,
he also pursued a political purpose by arguing that coming clean on the war
issue would give the SPD greater political credibility.41 After all, if social
democrats charged the Imperial Government with the responsibility for
the war while also openly regretting the extent of their own involvement,
they might invite a greater degree of international solidarity with a defeated
Germany, at the same time making it more difficult for the old elites to
return to key positions of political and social power. As Bernstein argued,
the way to a clean break with Germany's authoritarian past lay in the social
democrats' ability to drag the war-guilt issue out of the dangerous
historical twilight providing the nationalist parties an ideal hiding place
from which to assail the "Marxist traitors" for their alleged failures.
Not surprisingly, Bernstein's rather persuasive strategy of consistently
disclosing the negative role of the Imperial Government struck most of his
Praktiker comrades as a sure-fire way to lose electoral support from large
segments of a German population which clearly found comfort in the
chauvinistic belief that Germany bore no war guilt, and believed that the
severe conditions of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles had punished a whole
nation unjustly. Moreover, the party pragmatists feared that the explosive
mixture of admitting Germany's war guilt and leveling profound self-
criticism would legitimize the Allies' reparation demands and therefore
further exacerbate right-wing attacks on the young republic.
Remaining true to his ethical principles, Bernstein continued to
denounce those "phoney socialists" who lacked either the backbone or
the conviction to finally come to terms with recent German history. In
particular, their opportunistic tactics, geared to manipulate the public
outrage aroused by the harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty, gave
Bernstein a golden opportunity to contest his party's shameless abandon-
ment of its moral duty. Announcing that "the guilt for the outbreak of the
40
Eduard Bernstein, Die Wahrheit iiber die Einkreisung Deutschlands: Dem deutschen Volke
dargelegt (Berlin: Verlag Neues Vaterland, 1919).
41
Winkler, "Eduard Bernstein as Critic of Weimar Social Democracy," in Fletcher,
Bernstein to Brandt, p. 178.
 Bernstein'sfinalbattle 243
42
war lies with the German Imperial Government/' and accepting the
high reparation payments as "unavoidable necessities/' he continued to
deliver his courageous speech at the 1919 SPD Congress despite the
shouted anti-Semitic slurs and hostile boos of the party delegates.
Bernstein chose to direct his final passionate appeal at the party member-
ship, demanding that "we finally rid ourselves of the bourgeois code of
honor; only the truth, nothing but the whole truth can help us." 43
Prominent delegates reacted with ridicule, labeling Bernstein's appeals as
the "talmudic methods" of a man suffering from a misguided "passion for
truth."44
The 1919 Party Conference served as the pathetic context for the
shallowness of social democratic principles created by the SPD's general
disregard for socialist theory and ethical principles. Gustav Hoch, the sole
delegate who spoke in Bernstein's defense, issued a prophetic warning,
saying that if the party did not follow Bernstein's advice urging it to draw
clear lines of demarcation between socialist principles and the propaganda
of the nationalist forces, it would eventually be devoured by the ominous
consequences of its own opportunistic strategy.45 The Weimar party
leadership around Ebert, Scheidemann, and Adolf Braun nonetheless
turned a deaf ear to the "dumb and destructive" pronouncements of
"supermoralists" with "a bee in their bonnets of truth."46 Resenting him
for needlessly obstructing the "concrete political goals" of the party, the
Praktiker ridiculed Bernstein's continued attacks against what they
considered to be their "reasonable tactics" of moderation vis-d-vis the
aggressive strategy of radical right-wing forces. For Scheidemann, Be-
rnstein had lost all his political acumen and lowered himself to playing the
moralist "devil's advocate," who, in his "exaggerated sense of justice,"
ended up legitimating the war gains of "Germany's enemies."47 Declaring
that he had nothing more to add to this issue, Scheidemann indicated that
he and the party leadership felt they could ill afford to alienate potential
voters by accepting high-sounding ethical arguments equating the "vast
misery" of post-war Germany with the "small amount of suffering"
inflicted by German troops on Belgium and France.
Given the widespread nationalist sentiments in Germany and seen from
a purely instrumental point of view, it was indeed difficult to evaluate what
42
Bernstein cited in Schelz-Brandenburg, Eduard Bernstein und Karl Kautsky, p. 387.
43
Protokoll iiber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutsch-
lands. Abgehalten in Weimar vom 10 bis 15 Juni 1919, pp. 242-247.
44
Winkler, Von der Revolution zur Stabilisierung, p . 2 1 3 .
45
Ibid.
46
Winkler, "Eduard Bernstein as Critic of Weimar Social Democracy," in Fletcher,
Bernstein to Brandt, p . 1 7 8 .
47
Winkler, Von der Revolution zur Stabilisierung, p . 2 1 3 .
244 Disappointment
the likely domestic political consequences would have been had the party
decided to follow Bernstein's advice. However, the socialist tradition had
always prided itself on never fully surrendering its fundamental principles
to instrumentalism. While Bernstein conceded that the "distinction
between principle and tactics can never be absolute/' he also insisted that
"theory should guide tactics and not the other way around."48 For
example, in the context of the 1870 Franco-Prussian war, the Eisenacher
party leadership had proven in a dramatic way that theory - at the time
understood as the principles of Marxist internationalism - could indeed
outweigh instrumental concerns. Fifty years later, the SPD's Executive
Committee skillfully used theory in order to justify their unwillingness to
act on principle. The 1922 reunification of the SPD and USPD provided
the Praktiker with an excellent opportunity to bury the question of
German war guilt under meaningless Marxist phrases that blamed the
outbreak of the war on "capitalism and the class rule of proprietors."49
Bernstein flatly denied this thesis, arguing that such general concepts
covered up important aspects of German political evolution - "a history of
the struggle of democratic forces against the hegemony of militarists,
traditionally cultivated in the upper-class circles of the Empire."50 Even
Kautsky strongly objected to his party's opportunist tactic of simply using
the term "capitalism" as a blanket justification for remaining silent on the
role of the real war criminals in the Kaiser's government and General
Staff. Moreover, the party's instrumentalist return to some Marxist
slogans in order to satisfy its new brethren from the dissolved USPD gave
the rising nationalist forces fresh ammunition for their propaganda
campaign aimed at persuading the new middle classes that the reunified
SPD remained hopelessly wedded to its old Marxist dogmas and was thus
incapable of transforming itself into a more inclusive "German people's
party."
Predictably, the 1924 general election dealt the SPD a severe setback,
while nationalist parties gained ground. In the end, the party's opportun-
ism on the question of war guilt, combined with its tactical ideological
reversals, turned out to be just as risky as Bernstein's ethical approach.
The strategic and moral weaknesses exhibited by Weimar social democ-
racy further encouraged the parties of the extreme Right to step up their
all-out ideological campaign against the despised "Republic of Jews and
Socialists."
48
Eduard Bernstein, "Zum Reformismus," in SM 12(1908), p. 1,400; and Bernstein, "Ein
Vorwort zur Programmrevision," p. 24.
49
Winkler, "Eduard Bernstein as Critic of Weimar Social Democracy," in Fletcher,
Bernstein to Brandt, p . 1 8 0 .
50
Eduard Bernstein, "Well-Meaning American on the Wrong Way" (August 20, 1926), in
Bernstein A, A3.
 Bernstein's final battle 245
Last years
Despite his dwindling popularity with the party leadership, Bernstein was
re-elected as a Berlin representative to the Reichstag from 1920 to 1928.
As in his earlier parliamentary tenure, he dedicated most of his energy to
matters of taxation and foreign affairs. While he kept his regular routine of
juggling his political activities and his busy journalistic schedule, his
personal life took a turn for the worse. Feeling very lonely after the death of
his wife in 1923, he sought to intensify his contact with relatives. He began
a correspondence with his younger brother and spent some time with his
nephew, Walther, who had spent most of the war in Russian captivity. The
one bright spot of this period was marked by his resumed friendship with
Karl Kautsky, his "dear confrater strenuus in marxismo" as Bernstein wrote
in his dedication to Kautsky's copy of the Gorlitz Programm.
In 1924, drawing on the rich symbolism of Bernstein's and Kautsky's
long relationship, the party arranged a memorable banquet celebrating
both the sixtieth anniversary of the first International Workingmen's
Association and Kautsky's seventieth birthday. Selected to give the main
speech, Bernstein eloquently recounted the ups and downs of their
remarkable relationship. He closed his speech with honest words of
affection directed at Kautsky, and the two "old men" of German social
democracy engaged in a long, emotional embrace - providing all those
present with a moving image of fleeting socialist unity. Six years later,
Kautsky repaid the goodwill of his friend by writing an essay in honor of
Bernstein's eightieth birthday. The days of battle, though not forgotten,
were long forgiven, allowing the emergence of Kautsky's fine sense of
humor: "In political matters we have been Siamese twins since 1880.
Even such persons quarrel occasionally."51
Bernstein remained active until his death, dedicating long hours to
furthering the cause of his beloved labor movement, yet not shying away
from criticizing the theoretical vacuum maintained by still another new
generation of Praktiker. The SPD's central offices concentrated on
organizing electoral campaigns and attending to administrative matters,
leaving a remarkable group of young socialist intellectuals in greater
isolation than ever before, and often driving them into the ranks of the
KPD. It was both Bernstein's blessing and curse to live long enough to see
the dark side of reformist socialism: its bureaucratization, the rule of elites,
and an instrumentalist logic slowly gnawing away at the theoretical
concerns of his ethical vision. Speaking of the "harmful consequences of
the SPD's neglect of political education" and the fact that "socialist
51
Kautsky cited in Korsch, "The Passing of Marxian Orthodoxy: Bernstein-Kautsky
-Luxemburg-Lenin," in Kellner, Revolutionary Theory', p. 179.
246 Disappointment
theory" had become "completely alien to many [party members]/' 52
Bernstein's Cassandra calls went, once again, unheeded. Sharing the woes
of age with the few remaining "old veterans" of the early days, Bernstein
complained about the "arrogance" of party bureaucrats and the "coward-
ice of the German democratic forces" which had lost "the great idea of
internationalism" and caved in to the ethnonationalists' demagogery of
"national honor and dignity."53 These disheartening experiences drove
Bernstein into periods of deep depression, during which he lamented his
"political death."54
In the end, however, even the blows of party instrumentalism proved to
be unable to destroy his fading efforts at bringing theory back into the
SPD. Although the major party publications - including Rudolf Hilferd-
ing's Gesellschaft and Friedrich Stampfer's Vorwdrts - refused to print
most of his articles, Bernstein never ceased writing. Defying the entire
party press, the septuagenarian took it upon himself to initiate an
elaborate correspondence with old friends and supporters, aimed at
securing the funds for a new socialist periodical. Though the enterprise
never got off the ground, Bernstein genuinely enjoyed renewing old
contacts with progressive journalists and editors.
Having voluntarily resigned from his Reichstag mandate at age seventy-
eight in order to "make room for youth," Bernstein also proved that he
would never give up on the labor movement, no matter how harshly he
was treated. Seeking to remain in some form "useful to the cause,"55 he
was a coveted speaker at local party gatherings, usually entertaining his
audience with his personal reminiscences. In spite of his debilitating
arthritis, he served on the 1928 SPD Commission to investigate the
soundness of the party's military and defense policy proposals. In the end,
Bernstein suggested formulating socialist demands in favor of the democ-
ratization of the German army, but he voted against radical socialist calls
for the abolition of the German armed forces. 56
His last literary project summed up a lifetime of service for social justice.
Together with Kautsky, who had returned to his native Vienna, Bernstein
drew up a document warning against the danger of politicial extremism,
accusing the KPD of maintaining "secret threads between Hitler's
NSDAP and Stalin's CPSU."57 Entitled "The Task of the Hour," the
52
Bernstein cited in Fletcher, "The Life and Work of Eduard Bernstein," in From Bernstein
to Brandt, p. 52.
53
Bernstein to Eckstein (November 19, 1925), Bernstein A, C14; and Bernstein, "Wer
regiert heute Europa?" (February 16, 1923), ibid.
54
Bernstein to Kautsky (November 9, 1927), Kautsky Archive, IISH, DV 543.
55
Bernstein to Kautsky (September 13/October 7, 1929), Kautsky Archive, IISH, DV556.
56
Winkler, Der Schein der Normalitdt, pp. 629-630.
57
Eduard Bernstein, "Deutschnationale und Bolshevisten" in (1928), Bernstein A, A25.
 Bernstein'sfinalbattle 247
unpublished document contained Bernstein's optimistic political credo:
"In today's stormy political conditions, the German Social Democratic
Party is the only firm fortress that can withstand the charge of the masses
who are being misled by both the extreme Right and radical Left."58 In
public, Bernstein refused to let the ominous signs of a new right-wing
barbarism interfere with his incorrigible optimism. In private discussions,
however, he vented his fear of a possible takeover by Hitler's nationalist
forces.59 Keeping up with political developments until the end, Eduard
Bernstein died of heart failure on December 18, 1932. His funeral was
attended by thousands who turned the occasion into one of the last mass
demonstrations against a burgeoning National Socialism whose poison-
ous message would prove fatal to the young republic. Vorwdrts editor-in-
chief Friedrich Stampfer and Reichstag president Paul Lobe delivered
eloquent eulogies for a comrade who, mercifully, had been spared from
seeing his worst fears become reality.
On January 30, 1933, only six weeks after Bernstein's death, Adolf
Hitler became the new Reichskanzler and, a few months later, proceeded
to end the ill-fated German experiment in representative democracy. But
even the thirteen years of Hitler's Gewaltherrschaft could not destroy the
ethical vision of a free and egalitarian German society which lay at the very
heart of Eduard Bernstein's quest for evolutionary socialism: "Dedication
to the Common Good! This is the eternal foundation of morality."60

Conclusion
The various academic assessments of Bernstein's contribution to socialist
theory range from enthusiastic pronouncements that his approach "has
won on all fronts,"61 to lessflatteringattributes that describe his political
thought as fatallyflawedand "inchoate."62 This study has argued that the
truth lies somewhere in between. Both the greatest strength and the most
obvious weakness in Bernstein's revisionism was the unshakable evol-
utionary optimism that helped him identify the vital connections between
socialism and liberalism, ethics and politics, and democracy and social
reform. At the same time, his evolutionism also led to the glaring
shortcomings of his linear notion of political and ethical progress in the
West.
58
Bernstein cited in Schelz-Brandenburg, Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky, p. 393.
59
Winkler, Der Schein der Normalitat, p. 630.
60
Bernstein frequently described socialism using this quotation from Heraclitus. See, for
example, Eduard Bernstein, "Was ist Sozialismus?," in Hirsch, Ein revisionistisches
Sozialismusbild, p. 157.
61
Carlo Schmid cited in ibid., p. 13.
62
Fletcher, Revisionism and Empire, pp. 165, 183-188.
248 Disappointment
Although he clearly recognized that the development of a genuinely
liberal socialism called for major revisions, and even the abandonment, of
major portions of Marx's theory, the rationalist spirit of the old master
continued to hover over Bernstein's pen. Marxism and the universalist
discourse of the Enlightenment were the significant intellectual forces
dominating his conceptual landscape. Even though he wrote against the
"dogmatism of scientific socialism," he often felt forced to justify his
critical intervention by showing that an "evolutionary-liberal" interpreta-
tion of Marxist socialism might be employed against its doctrinal cousin.
But in the end, Marx's and Engels' theoretical influence on him turned
out to be a mixed blessing at best, for it prevented Bernstein from
formulating an unambiguous repudiation of the Marxist Weltanschauung.
This is not to say that any serious socialist thinker can afford to overlook
Marx's lasting insights. However, the evolutionary optimism driving
Bernstein's liberal-socialist vision at times sounded just as deterministic
and dogmatic as Marx's socialism. Convinced that modernity was
"inexorably" moving toward increasing social complexity and nobler
forms of "socialist culture," Bernstein clung to a liberal-Victorian
conceptual universe which retarded his realization that the mode of
political compromise and reformist gradualism could easily degenerate
into a political instrumentalism that might reverse previous social gains
and strengthen new forms of authoritarianism. Consequently, as Stephen
Eric Bronner has pointed out, there remain major theoretical inconsisten-
cies in Bernstein's assumption that the cumulative impact of a steady
reformism would eventually produce a systemic transformation of capital-
ist society.63 Yet, it is equally important to acknowledge that, by
reinserting moral subjectivity and human agency into socialist theory,
Bernstein at least took the important first steps toward the necessary
process of disentangling the socialist tradition from the ideological grip of
the founders of scientific socialism.
Though his talent for historical interpretation made minor classics of
works like Ferdinand Lassalle As a Social Reformer, and Cromwell and
Communism, Bernstein was hardly in the same league with academic
historians like Wilhelm Dilthey, Friedrich Meinecke, or Oswald Spengler.
The same can be said of his philosophical contribution, which certainly
exhibits the author's firm grasp of general theoretical problems, but
nonetheless lacks the polished features and in-depth understanding of
academically trained socialist philosophers like Karl Marx, Georg Lukacs,
Jean Jaures, or Max Adler. To be fair, however, it must be emphasized that
Bernstein never laid claim to advancing path-breaking philosophical
63
Bronner, Socialism Unbound, p. 73.
 Bernstein's final battle 249
theses. Rather, he approached political and social philosophy with the
caution of an experienced social observer who knows that theoretical
analysis captures only a fraction of real-life complexity. His enormous
range of intellectual interests provided the necessary foundation for
his astute commentaries on the ethical implications of public policy
decisions.
As a commentator on current political affairs, Bernstein takes his place
as the genuine successor of Friedrich Engels who, as J. D. Hunley has
recently pointed out, also possessed a vast knowledge of "such a diversity
of disciplines as science, philosophy, history, anthropology, languages,
economics, current events, and business matters . . . without falling into
the pit of dilettantism."64 Eminently successful in his career as a political
journalist, Bernstein's numerous articles appeared not only in socialist
publications, but were frequently picked up by the bourgeois press or
given prominent space in first-rate social-science journals like Max
Weber's Archives for Social Science. Bernstein possessed an intuitive grasp
of emerging sociopolitical trends and rendered his political judgment in a
language that was free of the partisan prejudice of many of his Marxist
comrades.
It is in the field of political science - spanning from political theory to
political economy; from international relations to comparative politics;
and from public policy to political sociology - that Bernstein can truly lay
claim to distinction. While holding fast to the humanist ideals of the
Enlightenment and stressing the liberal tenets of individual responsibility
and ethical engagement, Bernstein's new socialist vision was informed by
real social interdependence rather than by Hegel's speculative totality.
Evolutionary socialism aimed, first and foremost, at developing an
empirically informed, normative foundation for the realization of concrete
socialist demands. Bernstein's self-critical political discourse sought to
leave the necessary space for serious debates with political opponents,
while at the same time retaining the ethical ideals that comprise the basis
of a liberal-egalitarian vision of society. Indeed, such attempts to marry
the "demon of politics" with the "god of love" (Weber) never fully escape
the eternal conflict between the expediency of the political moralist and
the conviction of the moral politician, so well described in Immanuel
Kant's Perpetual Peace.65 At the same time, a theory of ethical socialism
refuses habitually to subordinate theoretical concerns to instrumental
considerations, be it in the name of "rationality," "realism," or "national
self-interest." Taking into consideration both the material and ideal
interests of disadvantaged groups in society, Bernstein's evolutionary
64
J. D. Hunley, The Life and Thought of Friedrich Engels (New Haven: Yale UP, 1991), p. 46.
65
Kant, Political Writings, pp. 121-125.
250 Disappointment
socialism insisted on a synchronization of means and ends, of moral
integrity and political objectives.
For Bernstein, the ultimate task of the socialist thinker was the
seemingly impossible duty of nursing the steady flame of theory and
political morality without either allowing it to turn into an all-consuming
bushfire of sectarian purity or letting it be extinguished by the cold breath
of unprincipled instrumentalism. Hence, he neither shied away from the
onerous obligation of the socialist intellectual to both "explain the
movement and show the way," nor did he fall into the philosophical hubris
of maintaining that correct theory alone can create or destroy a political
movement.66 Indeed, Bernstein maintained that the concerns of the
socialist intellectual could not be divorced from matters of practice
understood as Kleinarbeit: they entailed not only the scientific investiga-
tion of empirical tendencies, but, most importantly, the organization and
education of the public, and the continuous solving of concrete problems
on the path toward a more libertarian and egalitarian society.67 Thus, he
insisted that socialist theorists maintain the open attitude of the social
scientist who sought to understand (verstehen in the Weberian sense) his
sociohistorical context. Without preserving the detached posture of a
"value-free" inquiry into social reality, Bernstein argued, social democ-
racy as a political movement deprived itself of examining the shifting
tendencies, possibilities, and preconditions for the desired transformation
of capitalist society.
Only after this crucial first cognitive step was taken could the social
scientist turn into a partisan "socialist theorist," who, developing eman-
cipatory strategies for linking scientific knowledge and particular inter-
ests, was engaged in the formulation of indispensable "categorical
imperatives binding political parties."68 Thus, it was within the concrete
world of the marginalized and oppressed that the socialist theorist could
complete his function, since progressive political parties were the "cham-
pions of specific interests which it is their duty to foster in every possible
way."69 Bernstein provided an important response to Kautsky's dominant
view that the primary role of political theory was not to initiate politics but
to analyze and explain social phenomena according to the "correct"
Marxist method. More than anything, Bernstein wanted to combine the
traditional role of a social scientist with that of the "thinker of the
movement" who provided the ethical principles for concrete political
action as well as analyzing its empirical presuppositions.
66
Bernstein to Antonio Labriola, n. d., Bernstein A> C20.
67
Bernstein, "Was ist Sozialismus?," in Hirsch, Ein revisionismches Sozialismusbild, p. 148.
68
Eduard Bernstein, "The Conquest of Political Power," in MS, pp. 306-307.
69
Ibid.
 Bernstein'sfinalbattle 251
For these reasons, it is difficult to ignore the significance of Bernstein's
constructive efforts in providing thefirstcoherent theoretical blueprint for
an evolutionary socialism whose liberal-socialist principles became even
more important in the course of this century. Indeed, Bernstein's
challenge to orthodox Marxism fertilized the vast field of twentieth-
century progressive political thought. To this very day, the full scope of
the historical consequences following his crucial intervention has not been
properly recognized. The emerging rifts within Marxist socialism opened
the gates to a flood of new "revisionisms," as well as to new theoretical
attempts at restoring unity. Considering himself a "thinker in the Marxist
tradition" despite his rejection of Hegelian categories and his obvious
liberal predilections for neo-Kantian critical theory, Bernstein set an
important first example for succeeding generations of socialist thinkers
who added their neo-Hegelian, Freudian, and Heideggerian inclinations
(among others) to a "Marxism" that had begun to investigate previously
neglected dimensions.
For example, V. I. Lenin, in his famous pamphlet What is to Be Done?,
directly responded to Bernstein's "heresies" by developing his own
voluntaristic-Blanquist brand of Marxism. Georges Sorel's irrationalist
syndicalism, which in turn spawned new radical socialisms of the Left and
Right, was deeply influenced by Bernstein's revisionism. Max Hor-
kheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Karl Korsch, Georg Lukacs, and other
members of the "Frankfurt School of Social Research" reacted to
Bernstein's "return to the critical moment" in socialist theory with a
revival of the Hegelianized socialism of the young Marx, combined with
Freud's psychological insights - a "Marxist eclecticism" celebrated in
their vision of "Critical Theory."
At the same time, Bernstein's intellectual initiative also helped
legitimize the growing neo-Kantian school within social democracy
comprised of noted social philosophers like Karl Vorlander, Conrad
Schmidt, Franz Staudinger, Max Adler, and Paul Natorp. Otto
Neurath, consciously building on the epistemological premisses of
Bernstein's evolutionary socialism, decisively influenced the formulation
of Karl Popper's critical rationalism and the logical positivism of the
Vienna Circle.70 Finally, contemporary forms of "liberal socialism,"
perhaps best articulated in the works of Norberto Bobbio and Luc Ferry
and Alan Renaut, can be traced back to Carlo Rosselli, Jean Jaures, and
Leon Blum - socialist thinkers heavily influenced by the "Father of
Revisionism."
70
For the connection between Bernstein's revisionism and Otto Neurath's theories, see
Freudenthal, "Otto Neurath: From Authoritarian Liberalism to Empiricism," in Dascal
and Griingard, Knowledge and Politics, pp. 207-240.
252 Disappointment
Perhaps it is most appropriate to leave the last word on the evaluation of
Eduard Bernstein's contribution to socialist theory to the Austrian party
journalist, Karl Leuthner, one of his fiercest nationalist opponents in the
"revisionist" camp:
[T]here is something touching about Bernstein's solicitude in analyzing, categor-
izing, and developing theoretical problems. People say he's hardly creative; he
never managed a genuine philosophical breakthrough. Yet, he succeeded in
dissolving ossified concepts, in the process endowing them with new life. He may
have lacked the sudden flashes of a true genius, but steadily holding up his lamp,
he moved inexorably toward new ground, illuminating a good many dark spots
and uncovering previously unrecognized connections.71
71
Karl Leuthner cited in Hyrkkanen, Sozialistische Kolonialpolitik, p. 282.
 Epilogue: evolutionary socialism at the
"end of socialism53

Before exploring the contemporary relevance of Bernstein's evolutionary

socialism we first ought to pose the more fundamental question: "What's
left of any socialism?" As we approach the millenium, it would appear that
the "socialist century" is, irrevocably, over. Soviet communism has
collapsed, Third World variants of Marxism-Leninism are on the wane,
and the once-so-admired systems of European social democracy are
seemingly exhausted. Previously dominating an OECD world based on a
national manufacturing industry, the social democratic-Keynesian wel-
fare state of Willy Brandt, Frangois Mitterand, Bruno Kreisky, and Olof
Palme has given way to the harsh realities of our post-industrial, globally
integrated capitalism. Edging toward the limits of an effective "national
control" of the production process, social democrats find the rules of the
economic game fundamentally changed. The fiery debates of the 1970s
over the implementation of a nationally based, social democratic "Third
Way" - or even "Eurocommunism" - have given way to a subdued
acknowledgment of the inevitability of a corporate "internationalism"
with neo-classical imperatives demanding the cut-back of entitlement
programs, the deregulation of markets, and effective wage controls
combined with significant tax cuts for business.
These developments, combined with the fall of Soviet communism,
have prompted many conservative commentators to herald the "end of
socialism" as such, rejoicing in claims of the "fulfillment of history" in
liberal capitalism, preferably that of the American persuasion.1 And
despite the surprising resurgence of religious and secular forms of
nationalism, it is indeed hard to quarrel with Francis Fukuyama's thesis
that our neo-classical economic and ideological paradigm of the 1990s
lacks competitors of a global stature. Consequently, even a good number
of progressive thinkers have assumed an almost fatalistic posture vis-a-vis
the seemingly inevitable globalization of capital, grudgingly confirming
1
See, for example, Francis Fukuyama, "The End of History," in The National Interest 16
(Summer, 1989), pp. 3-18; and The End of History and the Last Man (New York: The Free
Press, 1992).

253
254 Epilogue
that socialism, understood as a distinct ideology, or "set of ideologies and
its accompanying social movements," has seen its day.2 Toying with the
post-modern relativism of our times, they have called for the transform-
ation of the socialist tradition into a "cultural project." Suspicious of any
universalist "metanarrative," they reject the essentialist Enlightenment
themes of both Marx and Kant, seeking instead to deconstruct and
unmask modernity's "disciplinary" and "policing" modes of "subjuga-
tion."
Portraying socialism as part of the problem of modernity, academic
"post-modernists" like Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard, and
Judith Butler have struggled to make the "cultural Left" aware of a
"politics of identity." "Difference" and "subjectivity" are "activated" at
the expense of "solidarity" and "universality";3 deontological ethical
"grand narratives" are met with stern disapproval; and Western,
"logocentric" thought is perpetually "deconstructed."4 While it is true
that the relentless philosophical critique of Cartesian rationality has
drawn due attention to the persisting relations of domination in modern-
ity, the linguistic acrobatics of postmodernity haven't advanced by one
iota the political task of constructing social institutions capable of
answering the cries of real human suffering. The denouncement of the
"subject" as "fiction" has contributed to dangerous forms of aesthetic
withdrawal and political detachment while privileging the ontic world of
Heidegger's "Das Man" Politics degenerates into a "perpetual withhol-
ding gesture,"5 and theoretical assumptions are continuously "inter-
rogated," but never enacted or tested. Indeed, more than sixty years after
Bernstein's death, the post-modern "ontology of discord"6 has not been
able to offer concrete sociopolitical alternatives to his evolutionary
Enlightenment project of radically democratizing society through reform-
ist measures.
The utter discreditation of Soviet-style communism and the shortcom-
2
See, for example, Peter Beilharz, Postmodern Socialism: Romanticism, City and State
(Melbourne: University of Melbourne Press, 1994), p. 105; Norman Rush, "What was
Socialism?," in The Nation (January 24, 1994) and various responses to Rush's article in
"Socialism: An Exchange," The Nation (March 7, 1994); Frederic Jameson, Postmodern-
ism (London: Verso, 1991); Ernesto Laclau, Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time
(London: Verso, 1991); and Ralf Dahrendorf, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (New
York: Times Books, 1990).
3
Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1984), p. 82.
4
Jacques Derrida, "The Principle of Reason: The University in the Eyes of Its Pupils," in
Diacritics 19 (Fall, 1983).
5
Stephen K. White, Political Theory and Postmodernism (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991),
p. 18.
6
William Connolly, "Taylor, Foucault, and Otherness," in Political Theory 12 (May 1984),
p. 371.
 Epilogue 255
ings of the theoretically impoverished and bureaucratized social demo-
cratic model notwithstanding, there seems to be plenty of unfinished
business left in the "evolutionary" enterprise of extending the political
ideals of the French Revolution. The "Social Question" has not disap-
peared; contesting the vast disparities in wealth and well-being produced
by liberal capitalism remains an important political agenda.7 As Jiirgen
Habermas recently noted, there is still much to say for Bernstein's
"socialist ideal" of taming "capitalism to some point where it becomes
unrecognizable as such."8 Similarly, Michael Walzer emphasized that,
"The best name for... the political creed that defends the framework and
supports the necessary forms of state action for both groups and
individuals, is social democracy."9
Yet, the public contestation of social injustice must no longer be
translated into the Marxist dream of riding the wave of history into the
Utopia of a unitary social whole. Socialism, understood as the complete
"abolition of the commodity form" - a romantic "other" to some form of
market economy - has indeed come to an end.10 If anything, the harsh
lessons of the twentieth century have taught social democrats that
socialism is neither forced collectivization plus planned economy nor the
automatic gradualism of an evolutionary one-way street. As the Polish
dissident Adam Michnik put it, "We are what we were thirty years ago,
except that we have lost our illusions and gained in humility."11 Hence,
the continued viability of any socialism lies both in its capacity for
ideological renewal, that is, its ability to reconnect political practice to the
core principles of social democracy.
Ideological renewal can only occur through critical self-reflection.
Bernstein elevated such sincere forms of self-criticism to the modus
operandi of his evolutionary socialism. A thorough and permanent revision
of socialist theory should therefore no longer be interpreted as a disgrace-
ful "betrayal" of the (Marxist) cause, but as an ongoing effort to forestall
ideological petrification. Less exclusive, more moderate, and more
eclectic than its Marxist ancestor, any viable "socialism" of the future
must provide a comfortable home for the democratic critic who questions
total social solutions and calls for an ethically motivated struggle against
structurally embedded forms of injustice and social irresponsibility - be it
7
For the welter of contemporary counter-Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment theor-
izing see, for example, Axel Honneth, Thomas McCarthy, Claus Offe, and Albrecht
Wellmer, eds. Philosophical Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment (Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992).
8
Jiirgen Habermas cited in The New York Review of Books (March 24, 1994), p. 26.
9
Michael Walzer, "Political Liberalism," in Dissent (Spring, 1994), p. 191.
10
See also Bronner, Socialism Unbound.
11
Adam Michnik cited in The New York Review of Books (March 24, 1994), p. 26.
256 Epilogue
on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, gender, age, or sexual orientation.
Like Bernstein, such a critic rejects all forms of dogmatism, including that
of turning evolutionary-liberal socialism into a rigid system. In our rapidly
changing world, even the "revisionists" themselves must be subject to
internal and external review.
By abandoning its critical character and lowering its moral sights in the
name of "prudence" (also known as instrumentalism), European social
democracy eventually became too affirmative - a development culmina-
ting in Chancellor Helmut Schmidt's credo: "Each citizen must be
capable of consenting to an orderly procedure of conflict settlement by
compromise. He must be prepared to accept the loss of stringency and
consistency that goes with that."12 While it is true that "democracy is the
school of compromise,"13 the process of political bargaining ought not
overlook the fundamental question of how to reconcile liberty, accounta-
bility, and democracy while maintaining the highest possible degree of
individual freedom and economic equality. In order to prevent a fatal
compromise of principles, the core ethical ideals of social democracy must
be defended even at the risk of electoral defeat. This means that the
question of socialism can never disappear into the state just as the state
cannotbe jettisoned in favor of a nebulous idea of "communism." For this
reason, concrete problems like authority, distributive justice, and per-
sonal liberty ought to remain the most pressing issues debated in both
socialist theory and mainstream political theory.14
Indeed, the viability of social democracy depends on the institutional-
ized enactment of its progressive agenda, that is, its ability to reconnect
political practice to the core principles of social democracy. However, this
step cannot be taken without rejecting reductionistic Marxist concepts
that severely curtail the vision of a genuine liberal socialism. Though
European labor movements have long followed the example of the SPD in
replacing Marxism as their official ideology with a theoretical pluralism
that bases socialist principles equally on "Christian ethics, humanism,
and classical philosophy," many socialist intellectuals have refused to let
12
Schmidt cited in Bronner, Socialism Unbound, p. 63.
13
PS, p. 144.
14
Among the vast literature on this topic, important studies include: John Rawls, A
Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1971); Jiirgen Habermas, Knowledge and
Human Interest (Boston: Beacon, 1971); Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia
(New York: Basic Books, 1974); Alasdair Maclntyre, After Virtue (South Bend, IN:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1981); Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice (New York:
Basic Books, 1983); Robert Dahl, A Preface to Economic Democracy (New Haven: Yale
UP, 1984); Benjamin R. Barber, Strong Democracy (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 1984); Alan Gilbert, Democratic Individuality (New York: Cambridge
UP, 1990); and Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
UP, 1992).
 Epilogue 257
15
go of the Marxist framework. Ridiculing "ethical foundations" for
socialist theory, these stale voices of the old "New Left" continue to view
socialist theory through glasses colored by decades of hegemonic Marxist
conceptual categories. Though perhaps philosophically more demanding
than more eclectic forms of liberal socialism, Marxist doctrine nonethe-
less has failed in its self-imposed task of transforming the less abstract
political arena where concrete material interests compete with aesthetic
ideals, cultural biases, and moral dilemmas.
Twentieth-century Marxism is guilty of what Benjamin Barber calls
"The Law of Incomplete Realization."16 Barber's law demands that
philosophical principles are to be tested against their capacity to operate
when they are incompletely realized. Following this logic, Marxists can
not simultaneously defend the demands of The Communist Manifesto, and
wash their hands of the Bolshevik cult of personality and the despotism of
Chinese party bureaucrats. Despite its tendency to degenerate into
instrumentalism, Bernstein's "evolutionary socialism" achieves much
higher marks on Barber's scale.
Consequently, Bernstein's quest should be seen as the finest vision
social democracy has to offer: a consequent reformism aimed at extending
democracy understood as a "cooperative ideal." Challenging the antith-
esis between liberalism and socialism proclaimed by generations of
Marxist thinkers, the modern descendants of Bernstein's evolutionary
socialism call for an ideological renewal of social democracy based on the
re-evaluation of non-Marxist socialist currents and their historical con-
nections to liberal thought.
Indeed, the future of socialism seems now to hang in the balance of its
reorientation towards the liberal tradition and its renewed emphasis on
democratic and civic practices.17 As Jeremy Rifkin points out, the
profound technological and social changes brought on by the unfolding
Information Age revolution will force every country to rethink long-held
assumptions about the nature of politics, work, and citizenship.18 In our
15
1959 SPD Godesberg Program, cited in Meyer, Demokratischer Sozialismus - Soziale
Demokratie, p. 86.
16
Benjamin R. Barber, "An Epitaph for Marxism," in Social Science and Modern Society33.1
(November/December 1995), p. 24.
17
See ibid., p. 26; Peter Osborne, ed. Socialism and the Limits of Liberalism (London: Verso,
1991); Chantal Mouffe, "Toward a Liberal Socialism?," in Dissent (Winter, 1993), pp.
81-87; and Luc Ferry and Alain Renault, Political Philosophy, vol III: From the Rights of
Man to the Republican Idea, trans. Franklin Philip (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1992).
18
Jeremy Rifkin, "Civil Society in the Information Age," in The Nation (February 26,
1996),pp. 1 1 - 16; and The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn
of the Post- Market Era (New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 1995). See also Andrew Arato and
Joshua Cohen, Civil Society and Political Theory (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992).
258 Epilogue
era of government and corporate downsizing, special attention ought to be
paid to the central role of civil society as the rapidly growing "Third
Sector" between the market and government spheres which harbors the
opportunity to create millions of new jobs. While the goal of ideological
renewal should certainly not be the abandonment of social egalitarianism
in favor of abstract notions of liberty, it is imperative that twenty-first-
century social democrats re-envision politics, economics, and society in
accordance with some of the radical-liberal premises from which Marxism
departed in the second half of the nineteenth century. A new politics of
evolutionary socialism must firmly commit itself to intersystemic stra-
tegies aimed at advancing political and economic democracy and civil
rights, enhancing the social choices of the disadvantaged, and pursuing
deliberative, rational forms of public discourse.
Therefore, the most appropriate vehicle for liberal-socialist demands
remains the liberal language of rights which, as Bernstein argued so
forcefully, best articulates progressive principles: the expansion of per-
sonal rights at the expense of property rights, thus making socially
consequential power accountable to the will of all citizens.19 Social
democracy cannot simply jettison the specific institutional form of
modern liberal democracy without risking the reunification of state and
society in a totalizing way and thus the surrender of representative
democracy as such.20
The central tasks of extending political and economic democracy and
reconstructing the sphere of civil society between the market and the state
means that the old socialist goal of "overcoming the capitalist system"
must be abandoned. Here, Bernstein needs just as much revision as Marx,
for the post-World War II era has clearly indicated the limits of a
piecemeal reformism in a capitalist system which produces both social
inequality and the revenues needed for redistributive welfare measures.21
This appreciation of the market as intrinsically connected to liberal
democracy may strike inveterate Marxists (some of whom still advocate
political control by workers' councils) as "defeatist."22 So be it. Michael
Harrington has put it best when he insisted that modern social democracy

19
This is the thesis of Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis in Democracy and Capitalism:
Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought, a study that argues
in favor of "post-liberal democracy."
20
See Agnes Heller, "On Formal Democracy," in John Keane, ed. Civil Society and the State
(London: Verso, 1988), pp. 131-133.
21
This point has been made in great detail by Noberto Bobbio, Which Socialism?
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986), pp. 100-101.
22
See, for example, Alex Callinicos, The Revenge of History: Marxism and the East European
Revolutions (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991), pp.
109-113.
 Epilogue 259
must understand itself "on the basis of ethical values and not simply in
terms of the material interests of a single class."23
Is therefore the tension between ethical socialist principles and the
necessary instrumentalism that comes from accepting some form of
market economy unresolvable? Stated in such absolute terms, the answer
is yes. But the inescapability from some instrumentalism under conditions
of advanced capitalism does not mean that there isn't significant room for
change and improvement. In fact, ethical socialists fulfill the important
task of reminding Praktiker who separate values from political activities of
the importance of ideals guiding practice. At the same time, ethical
idealists must be made to recognize the necessity of pragmatic strategies in
democratic politics. Without relying on absolute assurances, progressives
are called upon to issue political judgments under ever-changing social
conditions that may encourage a variety of competing and conflicting
maxims of choice.
The celebration of the quest for this elusive "middle way" is Bernstein's
legacy to socialist theory. Necessary instrumental considerations of
proficient means must be balanced with core principles of "responsive-
ness to individual will, non-arbitrariness, social efficiency and economy,
fairness in distributions and in distinctions of recognition and reward."24
The transcendental character of a socialist ethic prescribes the moral duty
of striving for the realization of the Enlightenment ideals while making
their full implementation impossible. As Charles W. Anderson has
pointed out, the justification for such a "middle way" lies not in its appeal
to considerations of first philosophy, but in its search for the best fit
between theory and practice, continuously taking stock and reappraising
its convictions and commitments to the ideals of good practice, "in the
light of the intrinsic aims of the enterprise itself."25 Rather than furnishing
all-encompassing philosophical systems or dogmatic truths, Bernstein
defined the task of the socialist theorist as supplying the "theoretical
outline of a fundamentally reformist social democratic politics."26
True, Bernstein's delicate balancing act of principles and political
effectiveness could neither prevent the growth of social democratic
instrumentalism nor the birth of a soviet-style voluntarist fanaticism.
There is no doubt, however, that these extreme positions have weakened
the critical impulse in socialism and engulfed the entire socialist project in
a profound sense of disillusionment. In addition, social democracy's lack
23
Harrington, Socialism Past and Future, p. 276.
24
Charles W. Anderson, Pragmatic Liberalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1990), pp. x-xi.
25
Ibid., pp. 180, 189.
26
B e r n s t e i n , Wie eine Revolution zu Ende ging, p . 9.
260 Epilogue
of vision has led to its poor theoretical response vis-a-vis the rising
"post-material" forces of the ecological Left and the New Right. Without
the theoretical and institutional renewal of socialism, the 150-year
paradigm of social democracy is in grave danger of slipping into historical
insignificance.
Thus, there is no closure on Bernstein's quest for evolutionary social-
ism. It will continue in those political thinkers and social reformers who
understand their task as a permanent balancing act aimed at increasing the
correspondence of ethical principles and political praxis. Like Bernstein,
they will reject the intellectual hubris of Marxism and settle for the more
modest role of mediating between different systems of thought in the
name of a fundamental reformist politics which seeks to approximate the
great ideal of social justice. As Benjamin Barber put it, "[PJatience and
humility remain the chief democratic virtues, especially for social demo-
crats."27 Evolutionary socialism presupposes tolerance, the willingness to
engage with political opponents, and, above all, the willingness to change.
"After all," Bernstein once noted, "time is the greatest revisionist."28
27
Barber, " A n Epitaph for M a r x i s m , " p . 2 6 .
28
Bernstein, "Der Marx-Cultus und das Recht der Revision," p. 18.
 Select bibliography

PRIMARY SOURCES
ARCHIVAL MATERIALS

International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam (IISH)

Eduard Bernstein Archive

Karl Kautsky Archive
August Bebel Archive

Verein fur die Geschichte der Ostereichischen Arbeiterbewegung, Vienna

(VGOA)
Victor Adler Archive
Alte Partei Archive

Periodical literature
A rbeiter-Zeitung
Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik
Archiv fur die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung
Berliner Volksblatt
Dokumente des Fortschritts
Dokumente des Sozialismus
Die Friedenswarte
Die Hilfe
Justice
Leipziger Volkszeitung
The Nation
Neue Deutsche Rundschau {Freie Volksbuhne)
Die Neue Gesellschaft
Die Neue Zeit
Preussische Jahrbucher
The Progressive Review
La Revue socialiste
Der Sozialdemokrat
Die Sozialistischen Monatshefte (Sozialistischer Akademiker, 1895-6; thereafter
Sozialistische Monatshefte)
Vorwdrts

261
262 Select bibliography

MINUTES, PROCEEDINGS, PROTOCOLS

Handbuch der sozialdemokratischen Parteitage 1863-1909, Wilhelm Schroder, ed.
Leipzig, 1971
Protokoll tiber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages des Sozialdemokratischen Partei
Deutschlands, Berlin, 1875-1930
Protokoll der Verhandlungen des dritten Kongresses der Gewerkschaften Deutschlands,
abgehalten zu Frankfurt IMain vom 8-13 Mai 1899. Hamburg, 1899
Verhandlungen des Deutschen Reichtags, XIII. Legislaturperiode, II. Session, Bd. 306.
Berlin, 1919

COLLECTIONS OF LETTERS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS

Adler, Victor, Briefwechsel mit August Bebelund Karl Kautsky sowie Briefe von undan
Ignaz Auer, Eduard Bernstein, Adolf Braun, Heinrich Dietz, Friedrich Ebert,
Wilhelm Liebknecht, Hermann Midler und Paul Singer. Friedrich Adler, ed.
Vienna, 1954
August Bebels Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Engels. Werner Blumenberg, ed. The
Hague, 1965
August Bebels Briefwechsel mit Karl Kautsky. Karl Kautsky Jr., ed. Assen 1971
Eduard Bernsteins Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Engels. Helmut Hirsch, ed. Assen, 1970
Eduard Bernstein und Karl Kautsky: Entstehung und Wandlung des sozialdemokratis-
chen Parteimarxismus im Spiegel ihrer Korrespondenz 1879-1932. Till Schelz-
Brandenburg, ed. Koln, 1992
Friedrich Engels' Briefwechsel mit Karl Kautsky. Benedikt Kautsky, ed. Vienna, 1955
Wilhelm Liebknechts Briefwechsel mit Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels. Georg Eckert,
ed. The Hague, 1963
The Letters of Rosa Luxemburg. Stephen Eric Bronner, ed. and trans. Atlantic
Highlands, NJ, 1993
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, Selected Correspondence (MESG). Moscow, n. d.

DOCUMENT COLLECTIONS, HANDBOOKS, LEXICONS

A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Tom Bottomore, ed. Cambridge, MA, 1983
The German Revolution and the Debate on Soviet Power: Documents 1918-1919. John
Riddell, ed. New York, 1986
Lenin, V. I., Collected Works. 45 vols. Moscow, 1960-3
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, Werke (MEW). 41 vols. Berlin, 1956-79
Collected Works (MECW). 36 vols. to date. New York, 1975-
The Marx-Engels Reader. Robert C. Tucker, ed. New York, 1978
Marx, Karl, Early Writings. Quintin Hoare, ed. New York, 1975
Marxism and Social Democracy. The Revisionist Debate 1896-1898. H. Tudor and J.
M. Tudor, eds. and trans. Cambridge, 1988
Der Marxismus. Seine Geschichte in Dokumenten. 3 vols. Iring Fetscher, ed.
Munich, 1962-5
Marxismus und Ethik. Texte zum neukantianischen Sozialismus. Hans-Jorg Sand-
kiihler and Rafael de la Vega, eds. Frankfurt/Main, 1974
Programmatische Dokumente der deutschen Sozialdemokratie. Dieter Dowe and Kurt
Klotzbach, eds. Berlin, 1973
 Select bibliography 263

SELECTED WORKS BY EDUARD BERNSTEIN

(Articles by Bernstein in the contemporary periodical literature are listed

in the footnotes of the various chapters.)
American Opinions of the World War as Seen by a German. New York, 1916
Die Arbeiterbewegung. Frankfurt, 1910
Aus denjahren meines Exils. 2nd edn. Berlin, 1918. (My Years of Exile: Reminis-
cences of a Socialist. Bernard Miall, trans. New York, 1921)
Cromwell and Communism. London, 1930
Die Deutsche Revolution. Berlin, 1921
Dokumente zum Welthrieg. Berlin, 1914
Ein Revisionistisches Sozialismusbild: Drei Vortrdge. 2nd edn. Helmut Hirsch, ed.
Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 1976
Die englische Gefahr und das deutsche Volk. Berlin, 1911
"Entwicklungsgang eines Sozialisten," in Die Volkswirtschaftlehre in Selbstdarstel-
lungen. Felix Meiner, ed. Leipzig, 1924, pp. 1-58
Ferdinand Lassalle as a Social Reformer. Eleanor Aveling trans. London, 1893
Geschichte der deutschen Schneiderbewegung. Berlin, 1913
Der Geschlechtstrieb. Berlin, 1920
Das Gorlitzer Programm der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands. Berlin, 1922
Die heutige Einkommensbewegung und die Aufgabe der Volkswirtschaft. Berlin, 1902
Die heutige Sozialdemokratie in Theorie und Praxis. Munich, 1906
Ignaz Auer, Eine Gedenkschrift. Berlin, 1907
Die Internationale der Arbeiterklasse und der europdische Krieg. Tubingen, 1915
Die Leiden des armenischen Volkes und die Pflichten Europas. Berlin, 1902
"Nachtrag und Anmerkungen" to Louis Heretier, Geschichte der Franzosischen
Revolution von 1848 unter der Zweiten Republic in volksthilmlicher Darstellung.
W. Eichhoffand E. Bernstein, eds. Stuttgart, n. d. [1897]
Die Natur und die Wirkungen der kapitalistischen Wirtschaftsordnung. Berlin, 1909
Die Neuen Reichsteuern. Berlin, 1906
Parlamentarismus und Sozialdemokratie. Berlin, 1906
Der politische Massenstreik und die politische Lage der Sozialdemokratie in Deutsch-
land. Berlin, 1906
The Preconditions of Socialism. Henry Tudor, ed. and trans. Cambridge, 1993
Selected Writings ofEduardBernstein, 1900-1921. Manfred B. Steger, ed. and trans.
Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1996
Sozialdemokratische Lehrjahre. Berlin, 1928
Sozialdemokratische Volkerpolitik: Die Sozialdemokratie und die Frage Europa.
Leipzig, 1917
Die Sozialisierung der Betriebe. Basle, 1919
Der Sozialismus Einst undjetzt. 2nd ed. Berlin, 1923
Die Steuerpolitik der Sozialdemokratie. Berlin, 1914
DerStreik. Frankfurt, 1906
Texte zum Revisionismus. Horst Heimann, ed. Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 1977
Der Volkerbund. Basel, 1919
Vb'lkerbund oder Staatenbund? Berlin, 1919
Volkerrecht und Volkerpolitik. Berlin, 1919
Von der Aufgabe der Juden im Weltkriege. Berlin, 1917
264 Select bibliography

Von der Sekte zur Partei: Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie Einst undjetzt. Jena, 1911
Von 1850 bis 1872: Kindheit und Jugendjahre. Berlin, 1926
"Vorwort," in Noe Zhordaniya, Marxismus und Demokratie. Berlin, 1921
"Vorwort des Herausgebers," in David Koigen, Die Kultur der Demokratie. Jena,
1912
Die Wahrheit u'ber die Einkreisung Deutschlands: Dem deutschen Volke dargelegt.
Berlin, 1919
Was ist der Marxismus: Antwort auf eine Hetze. Berlin, 1924
Was die Sozialdemokratie will. Die Ziele, die Grundsdtze und die Politik der
Sozialdemokratie. n. d. [1920]
Wesen und Ansichten des burgerlichen Radikalismus. Munich, 1915
Wie eine Revolution zugrunde ging. Stuttgart, 1921
Wirtschaftswesen und Wirtschaftswerden: Drei gemeinverstdndliche Abhandlungen.
Berlin, 1920
Zur Frage: Socialliberalismus oder Collectivismus. Berlin, 1900
Zur Geschichte und Theorie des Sozialismus. 4th ed. Berlin, 1904

OTHER PRIMARY SOURCES

Adler, Max, Marxistische Probleme. Berlin, 1922
Bebel, August, Aus meinem Leben. 3 vols. Berlin, 1953
Duhring, Eugen, Careys Umzvdlzung der Volkswirtschaftlehre und Sozialzvissenschaft.
Munich, 1865
Cursus der National und Sozialokonomie. Leipzig, 1925
Kritische Geschichte der Nationalokonomie und des Sozialismus. 4th ed. Leipzig,
1900
Hildebrand, Gerhard, Sozialistische Aussenpolitik. Jena, 1911
Hobhouse, L. T., Liberalism and Other Writings. James Meadowcroft, ed. Cam-
bridge, 1994
Kant, Immanuel, Political Writings. Hans Reis, ed. Cambridge, 1991
Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. H. J. Paton, trans. New York, 1964
Kautsky, Karl, Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm: Eine Antikritik.
Berlin, 1976
Die Diktatur des Proletariats. Vienna, 1918
"Eduard Bernstein," Die Weltbuhne 16.2 (1920)
Erinnerungen und Erorterungen. Benedikt Kautsky, ed. The Hague, 1960
Das Erfurter Programm. 20th edn. Berlin, 1980
Ethik und materialistische Geschichtsauffassung. Stuttgart, 1906
"Karl Kautsky," in Meiner, Die Volkswirtschaftslehre
Karl Marx3 okonomische Lehren. Stuttgart, 1887
Kautsky gegen Lenin. Peter Liibbe, ed. Berlin, 1981
The Materialist Conception of History. John H. Kautsky, ed. and trans. New
Haven, 1988
Die soziale Revolution. Berlin, 1902
Der Weg zur Macht. Berlin, 1909
Lange, Friedrich Albert, Geschichte des Materialismus undKritik seiner Bedeutung in
der Gegenwart. Iserlohn, 1866 (History of Materialism. Ernest Chester
 Select bibliography 265

Thomas, trans. New York, 1950)

Die Arbeiterfrage in ihrer Bedeutungfuer Gegenwart und Zukunft. Duisburg, 1865
John Stuart Mills Ansichten uberdie sozialeFrage und die angebliche Umwdlzung der
Sozialzvissenschaft durch Carey. Duisburg, 1866
Luxemburg, Rosa, The Letters of Rosa Luxemburg. 2nd ed. Stephen Eric Bronner,
edn. and trans. Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1993
Reform or Revolution? New York, 1973
Michels, Robert, Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie.
Stuttgart, 1925
Naphtali, Fritz, Wirtschaftsdemokratie: Ihr Wesen, Weg, undZiel. Frankfurt, 1977
Naumann, Friedrich, Demokratie und Kaisertum. Berlin, 1900
Roselli, Carlo, Liberal Socialism. Nadia Urbinati, ed. and trans. Princeton, 1994
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Social Contract. Maurice Cranston, trans, and intr.
New York, 1968
Sombart, Werner, Der Proletarische Sozialismus. Jena, 1924
Webb, Sidney and Beatrice, Die Geschichte des Britischen Trade Unionismus. Regine
Bernstein, trans. Stuttgart, 1895
Weber, Max, Political Writings. Peter Lassman and Ronald Speirs, eds. Cam-
bridge, 1994
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Talcott Parsons, trans. London,
1930

SECONDARY SOURCES
BOOKS AND DISSERTATIONS
Abendroth, Wolfgang, Aufstieg undKrise der deutschen Sozialdemokratie. Frankfurt,
1969
After the Fall: The Failure of Communism and the Future of Socialism. Robin
Blackburn, ed. London, 1991
Anderson, Charles W., Pragmatic Liberalism. Chicago, 1990
Angel, Pierre, Eduard Bernstein et L'Evolution du Socialisme Allemand. Paris, 1961
Arato, Andrew, and Joshua Cohen, Civil Society and Political Theory. Boston, 1992
Aronson, Ronald, After Marxism. New York, 1995
Aschheim, Steven E., The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990. Berkeley, CA,
1992
Avineri, Shlomo, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge, 1968
Ball, Terence, Reappraising Political Theory. Oxford, 1995
Barber, Benjamin, Strong Democracy. Berkeley, CA, 1984
Baron, Samuel, Plekhanov: The Father of Russian Marxism. Stanford, CA, 1963
Barone, Charles A., Marxist Thought on Imperialism: Survey and Critique. London,
1985
Basler, Gerhard P., "The Origins of German Communism. 1900-1917." PhD
dissertation, University of Kansas, 1966
Bassermann, Karola, Ernst Bassermann. Mannheim, 1919
Beilharz, Peter, Postmodern Socialism. Melbourne, 1994
Labour's Utopias: Bolshevism, Fabianism, Social Democracy. London, 1992
Bellamy, Richard, Liberalism and Modern Society. University Park, PA, 1992
266 Select bibliography

Berlau, Joseph A., The German Social Democratic Party 1914-1921. New York,
1949
Bernstein to Brandt: A Short History of German Social Democracy. Roger Fletcher,
ed. London, 1987
Bernstein und der demokratische Sozialismus. Horst Heimann and Thomas Meyer,
eds. Berlin, 1978
The Betrayal of Marx. Frederick Bender, ed. New York, 1976
Between Totalitarianism and Postmodernity. Peter Beilharz, Gillian Robinson, and
John Rundell, eds. Cambridge, MA, 1992
Blaazer, David, The Popular Front and the Progressive Tradition: Socialists, Liberals,
and the Quest for Unity, 1884-1939. Cambridge, 1992
Bobbio, Noberto, Which Socialism? Cambridge, 1986
Liberalism and Democracy. London, 1988
Boggs, Carl, The Socialist Tradition: From Crisis to Decline. New York, 1995
Bouvier, Beatrix W., Franzosische Revolution und deutsche Arbeiterbewegung.
Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 1982
Bowles Samuel, and Herbert Gintis,, Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Commu-
nity, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought. New York, 1987
Braun-Vogelstein, Julie, Heinrich Braun. Stuttgart, 1967
Braunthal, Julius, History of the International 1864-1914. Henry Collins and
Kenneth Mitchell, trans. London, 1966
Breitman, R., German Socialism and Weimar Democracy. Chapel Hill, NC, 1981
Breuilly, John, Labour and Liberalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe: Essays in
Comparative History. Manchester, 1992
Briggs, A., Victorian People. London, 1954
Bronner, Stephen Eric, Rosa Luxemburg: A Revolutionary for Our Time. New York,
1987
Socialism Unbound. New York, 1990
Moments of Decision. New York, 1992
Buse, Dieter K., "Friedrich Ebert and German Socialism, 1871-1919." PhD
disseration, University of Oregon, 1972
Callari, Antonio, Stephen Cullenberg, and Carole Biewener, Marxism in the
Postmodern Age. New York, 1994
Callinicos, Alex, The Revenge of History: Marxism and the East European Revol-
utions. University Park, PA, 1991
Marxism and Philosophy. New York, 1985
Carsten, Francis L., Eduard Bernstein 1850-1932: Eine politische Biographie.
Munich, 1993
August Bebel und die Organisation der Massen. Berlin, 1991
Carver, Terrell, Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationship. Bloomington, IN,
1983
Friedrich Engels. His Life and Thought. Manchester, 1989
Civil Society and the State. John Keane, ed. London, 1988
Clarke, Peter, Liberals and Social Democrats. Cambridge, 1978
Cohen, G. A., Karl Marx's Theory of History. Princeton, 1978
Cole, G. D. H., A History of Socialist Thought. 3 vols. London, 1953-6
Coletti, Lucio, From Rousseau to Lenin. London, 1974
 Select bibliography 267

Collini, S., Liberalism and Sociology: L. T. Hobhouse and Political Argument in

England 1880-1914. Cambridge, 1979
Conert, Hans-Georg, Die politischen Grundrichtungen innerhalb der deutschen
Sozialdemokratie vor dem ersten Weltkrieg. Offenbach, 1973
The Crisis of Socialism in Europe. Christiane Lemke and Gary Marks, eds. Durham,
1992
Dahl, Robert, A Preface to Economic Democracy. Berkeley, CA, 1985
Dahrendorf, Ralf, Society and Democracy in Germany. New York, 1967
Reflections on the Revolution in Europe. New York, 1990
Dascal, Marcelo and Ora Griingard, Knowledge and Politics. Boulder, CO, 1989
Dominick III, Raymond H., Wilhelm Liebknecht and the Founding of the German
Social Democratic Party. Chapel Hill, N C , 1982
Donald, Moira, Marxism and Revolution: Karl Kautsky and the Russian Marxists.
New Haven, 1993
Draper, Hal, Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, Vol. I. New York, 1977
Eley, Geoff, Reshaping the German Right: Radical Nationalism and Political Change
after Bismarck. New Haven, CT, 1980
Ellisen, O. A., Friedrich Albert Lange. Eine Lebensbeschreibung. Leipzig, 1891
Fainsod, Merle, International Socialism and the World War. New York, 1973
Femia, Joseph V., Marxism and Democracy. Oxford, 1993
Ferry, Luc, and Alain Renault, Political Philosophy, vol. HI: From the Rights of Man
to the Republican Idea. Franklin Philip, trans. Chicago, 1992
Fesser, Georg, Linksliberalismus und Arbeiterbewegung: Die Stellung der Deutschen
Fortschrittspartei zur Arbeiterbewegung 1861-1866. Berlin, 1976
Feuchtwanger, E. J., From Weimar to Hitler: Germany, 1918-33. 2nd edn. New
York, 1995
Freeden, M., The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform. Oxford, 1978
Frei, Herbert, Fabianismus und Bernstein'scher Revisionism™, 1884—1900. Bern,
1979
Friedrich Albert Lange, Leben und Werk. J. H. Knoll and J. H. Schops eds.
Duisburg, 1975
Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History and the Last Man. New York, 1992
The Future of Socialism. William K. Tabb, ed. New York, 1990
Gall, Lothar, Geschichte des deutschen Liberalismus. Koln, 1966
Gay, Peter, The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism: Eduard Bernstein's Challenge to
Marx. 2nd edn. New York, 1962
Geary, Dick, Karl Kautsky. Manchester, 1987
The German Bourgeoisie. David Blackbourn and Richard J. Evans, eds. London,
1991
Gilbert, Alan, Democratic Individuality. New York, 1990
Gilcher-Holtey, Ingrid, Das Mandat des Intellectuellen: Karl Kautsky und die
Sozialdemokratie. Berlin, 1986
Glotz, Peter, Der Weg der Sozialdemokratie: Der historische Auftrag des Reformismus.
Vienna-Munich, 1975
Gouldner, Alvin W., The Two Marxisms: Contradictions and Anomalies in the
Development of Theory. New York, 1980
Gray, John, Liberalisms: Essays in Political Philosophy. London, 1989
268 Select bibliography

Grebing, Helga, Der Revisionismus: Von Bernstein bis zum 'Prager Fruhling'.
Munich, 1977
Greenfield, Liah, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge, MA, 1992
Groh, Dieter, Negative Integration und revolutiondrer Attentismus: Die deutsche
Sozialdemokratie am Vorabend des Ersten Weltkrieges Frankfurt-Main, 1973
Grundsdtzliches zum Tageskampf: Festgabe fur Eduard Bernstein. Mitarbeiter des
Breslauer Volkswacht, eds. Breslau, 1925
Giinther, Ernst, "Die revisionistische Bewegung in der deutschen Sozialdemok-
ratie, Teil I: Die allgemeinen theoretischen Grundlagen." PhD dissertation,
Universitat Freiburg, 1905
Gustafsson, Bo, Marxismus und Revisionismus. Frankfurt-Main, 1972
Guttsman, W. L., The German Social Democratic Party 1875-1933. London, 1981
Habermas, Jurgen, Knowledge and Human Interest. Boston, 1971
Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt-Main, 1985
Die Nachholende Revolution. Frankfurt-Main, 1990
Texte und Kontexte. Frankfurt-Main, 1991
Hall, Alex, Scandal, Sensation and Social Democracy: The SPD Press and Wilhelmine
Germany 1890-1914. Cambridge, 1977
Hansen, F. R., The Breakdown of Capitalism: A History of the Idea in Western
Marxism, 1883-1983. London, 1985
Harrington, Michael, Socialism Past & Future. New York, 1989
Harris, James F., A Study in the Theory and Practice of German Liberalism: Eduard
Lasher, 1829-1884. Lanham, M D , 1984
Heckart, Beverly, From Bassermann to Bebel: The Grand Bloc's Quest for Reform in
the Kaiserreich, 1900-1914. New Haven, CT, 1974
Heimann, Horst, Die Voraussetzungen des Demokratischen Sozialismus und die
Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie. Bonn, 1991
Hirsch, Helmut, August Bebel. Sein Leben in Dokumenten, Reden und Schriften.
Koln-Berlin, 1968
Der "Fabier" Eduard Bernstein. Berlin, 1977
Holthey, Helmut, Cohen and Natorp. 2 vols. Basle, 1986
Holzheuer, Walter, Karl Kautskys Werk als Weltanschauung. Beitrag zur Ideologic
der Sozialdemokratie vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg. Munich, 1972
Howard, Dick, From Marx to Kant. Albany, 1985
Howard, M. C. and J. E. King, A History ofMarxian Economics: vol. I, 1883-1929.
Princeton, 1989
Hulse, James W., Revolutionists in London. A Study of Five Unorthodox Socialists.
Oxford, 1970
Hunley, J. D., The Life and Thought of Friedrich Engels. New Haven, CT,
1991
Hiinlich, Reinhold, Karl Kautsky und der Marxismus der II Internationale. Marburg,
1981
Hunt, Richard N., German Social Democracy 1918-1933. New Haven, 1964
Hyrkkanen, Markku, Sozialistische Kolonialpolitik: Eduard Bernsteins Stellung zur
Kolonialpolitik und zum Imperialisms 1882-1914. Helsinki, 1986
Imperial Germany. James J. Sheehan, ed. New York, 1976
Jacobs, Jack, On Socialism and the Jewish Question after Marx. New York, 1993
 Select bibliography 269

Jager, Hans-Peter, Eduard Bernsteins Panorama: Versuch, den Revisionismus zu

deuten. Frankfurt-Main, 1982
Jameson, Frederic, Postmodernism. London, 1991
Joll, James, The Second International 1889-1914. 2nd. ed. Boston, 1974
Kampffmeyer, Paul, Eduard Bernstein und der Sozialistische Aufbau. Berlin, 1930
Karl Marx and the Close of his System. Paul Sweezy, ed. New York, 1966
Kautsky, John H., Karl Kautsky: Marxism, Revolution & Democracy. New
Brunswick, NJ, 1994
Kloppenberg, James. Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in
European and American Thought 1870-1920. New York, 1986
Kohnke, Klaus Christian, Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantianismus: Die
deutsche Philosophic zwischen Idealismus und Positivismus. Frankfurt-Main,
1986
Kolakowski, Leszek, The Main Currents of Marxism. 3 vols. Oxford, 1978
Konig, Erika. Vom Revisionismus zum c<Demokratischen Sozialismusiy. Berlin,
1964
Korsch, Karl, Marxism and Philosophy. Fred Halleday, trans. London, 1970
Krieger, Leonhard, The German Idea of Freedom. Boston, 1957
Kroner, Alice, "Eduard Bernstein und der theoretische Sozialismus." PhD
dissertation, Universitat Freiburg, 1923
Laclau, Ernesto, Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London, 1991
Langewiesche, Dieter, Liberalismus in Deutschland. Frankfurt, 1988
Lehnert, Detlef, Reform und Revolution in den Strategiediskusionen der klassischen
Sozialdemokratie. Bonn-Bad-Godesberg, 1977
Levine, Norman, The Tragic Deception: Marx contra Engels. Oxford, 1975
Lichtheim, George, Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study. 2nd edn. New York,
1965
Lidtke, Vernon, The Alternative Culture: Socialist Labor in Imperial Germany. New
York, 1985
The Outlawed Party. Social Democracy in Germany 1878-1890. Princeton, 1966
Luebbert, Gregory M., Liberalism, Fascism, or Social Democracy. New York, 1991
Lukacs, Georg, History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge, MA, 1990
Lyotard, Jean-Francois, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Min-
neapolis, 1984
MacDonald, Robert Kenneth, "Determinism and Freedom in German Socialist
Thought of the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century." PhD dissertation,
Brandeis University, 1968
Maclntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue. South Bend, IN, 1981
Maehl, William H., August Bebel: Shadow Emperor of the German Workers.
Philadelphia, 1980
German Militarism and Socialism. Lincoln, 1968
Marx and Marxisms. G. H. R. Parkinson, ed. Cambridge, 1982
Mayer, Gustav, Friedrich Engels. New York, 1969
McLellan, David, Marxism after Marx. Boston, 1979
Meyer, Thomas, Bernsteins konstruktiver Sozialismus. Berlin, 1977
Demokratischer Sozialismus - Soziale Demokratie. Berlin, 1991
Was bleibt vom Sozialismus? Reinbeck, 1991
270 Select bibliography

Miliband, Ralphs Socialism for A Sceptical Age. London, 1995

The State in Capitalist Society. London, 1969
Miller, Susanne and Heinrich Pothoff, A History of German Social Democracy:
From 1848 to the Present. Lexington/Spa, 1986
Das Problem der Freiheit im Sozialismus. Berlin, 1974
Miller, Susanne, Burgfrieden und Klassenkampf: Die Deutsche Sozialdemokratie im
Ersten Weltkrieg. Diisseldorf, 1974
Mommsen, Wolfgang J., Britain and Germany 1800-1914. Two Developmental
Paths Towards Industrial Society. London, 1986
Imperial Germany 1867-1918: Politics, Culture., and Society in an Authoritarian
State. New York, 1995
Moore Jr., Barrington, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and
Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Boston, 1966
Morgan, Roger, The German Social Democrats and the First International,
1864-1872. Cambridge, 1965
Nettl, J. P., Rosa Luxemburg, abridged edn. New York, 1989
Nichols, J. Alden, Germany after Bismarck. Cambridge, MA, 1958
Nipperdey, Thomas, Germany From Napoleon to Bismarck, 1800-1866. Princeton,
1996
Nove, Alec, The Economics of Feasible Socialism. London, 1982
Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York, 1974
Panzer, Michael, Der Einfluss Max Webers auf Friedrich Naumann. Wiirzburg,
1986
Papcke, Sven, Der Revisionismusstreitund diepolitische Theorie der Reform. Stuttgart,
1979
Pease, Edward Reynolds, The History of the Fabian Society. 3rd edn. New York,
1963
Peck, Abraham J., Radicals and Reactionaries: The Crisis of Conservatism in
Wilhelmine Germany. Washington, DC, 1978
Peffer, R. G., Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. Princeton, NJ, 1990
Philosophical Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment. Axel Honneth,
Thomas McCarthy, Claus Offe, and Albrecht Wellmer, eds. Cambridge,
MA, 1992
Pierson, Stanley, British Socialists. The Journey From Fantasy to Politics. Cam-
bridge, MA, 1979
Marxist Intellectuals and the Working-Class Mentality in Germany 1887-1912.
Cambridge, MA, 1993
Popper, Karl, The Open Society and Its Enemies vol. II: Hegel and Marx. Princeton,
NJ, 1971
The Poverty of Historicism. New York, 1957
Poulantzas, Nicos, State, Power, Socialism. London, 1980
Pracht, Elfie, Parlamentarismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie 1867-1914. Pfaffen-
weiler, 1990
Przeworski, Adam, Capitalism and Social Democracy. Cambridge, 1985
Rautio, Veli-Matti, Die Bernstein Debatte: die politisch-ideologischen Stromungen und
die Parteiideologie der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands 1898-1903.
Helsinki, 1994
 Select bibliography 271

Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA, 1971

Reformsozialismus und Sozialdemokratie. Horst Heimann and Thomas Meyer, eds.
Berlin, 1982
Reichard, Reichard W., Crippled from Birth: German Social Democracy 1844—1870.
Ames, IA, 1969
Revisionism: Essays in the History of Marxist Ideas. Leopold Labedz, ed. New York,
1962
Revolutionary Theory. Douglas Kellner, ed. Austin, 1977
Richter, Friedrich, "Grundzuge des Kampfes zwischen Marxismus und neokan-
tischen philosophischen Revisionismus in der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung
von Engels' Tod bis zum Ausbruch des ersten Weltkrieges (1895-1914)."
PhD dissertation, Universitat Leipzig, 1964
Rifkin, Jeremy, The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn
of the Post-Market Era. New York, 1995
Rikli, Erika, Der Revisionismus: Ein Revisionsversuch der deutschen marxistischen
Theorie, 1890-1914. Zurich, 1936
Ritter, Gerhard A., Die Arbeiterbewegung im Wilhelminischen Reich. Berlin, 1959
Ritter, Gerhard A. and Klaus Tenfelde, Arbeiterim Deutschen Kaiserreich, 1871 bis
1914. Berlin, 1992
Robinson, Joan, An Essay on Marxian Economics. London, 1949
Roemer, John, A Future for Socialism. Cambridge, MA, 1994
Rogers, H. Kendall, Before the Revisionist Controversy: Kautsky, Bernstein, and the
Meaning of Marxism 1895-1898. New York, 1992
Rosen, David S., "German Social Democracy between Bismarck and Bernstein:
Georg von Vollmar and the Revisionist Controversy, 1890-1895." PhD
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1975
Roth, Gunther, The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany. Totowa, NJ, 1963
Salvadori, Massimo, Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution, 1880-1938. Jon
Rothschild, trans. London, 1979
Schops, Julius H., Burgerliche AufklaerungundliberalesFreiheitsdenken: A. Bernstein
in seiner Zeit. Stuttgart, 1992
Schorske, Carl E., German Social Democracy 1905-1917: The Development of the
Great Schism. Cambridge, MA, 1955
Schroder, Hans-Christoph, Sozialismus und Imperialisms. Bonn-Bad Godesberg,
1975
Schumpeter, Joseph, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London, 1976
Shannon, R., The Crisis of Imperialism 1865-1915. London, 1976
Sheehan, Helena, Marxism and the Philosophy of Science. Atlantic Highlands, NJ,
1993
Sheehan, James, The Career of Lujo Brentano: A Study of Liberalism and Social
Reform in Imperial Germany. Chicago, 1966
German Liberalism in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago, 1978
Snell, John, The Democratic Movement in Germany, 1789-1914. Hans A. Schmitt,
ed. Chapel Hill, N C , 1976
Social Democracy in a Post-Communist Europe. Michael Waller, Bruno Coppieters,
and Kris Deschouwer, eds. Portland, OR, 1994
Socialism and the Limits of Liberalism. Peter Osborne, ed. London, 1991
272 Select bibliography

Socialism in History: Political Essays of Henry Pachter. Stephen Eric Bronner, ed.
New York, 1984
Stammer, Gerhard, Die Kunst des Unmoglichen oder die Politik der Befreiung: Uber
Eduard Bernsteins halbherzigen Versuch, Marx mit Kant zu korrigieren. Frank-
furt-Main, 1989
Stargardt, Nicholas, The German Idea of Militarism: Radical and Socialist Criticsy
1866-1914. Cambridge, MA, 1994
Steenson, Gary P., After Marx, Before Lenin: Marxism and Socialist Working-Class
Parties in Europe, 1884-1914. Pittsburgh, 1991
KarlKautsky, 1854-1938: Marxism in the Classical Years. Pittsburgh, 1978.
"Not One Man! Not One Penny!" German Social Democracy, 1863-1914.
Pittsburgh, 1981
Steigerwald, Robert, Burgerliche Philosophic und Revisionismus im imperialistischen
Deutschland. Berlin, 1980
Steinberg, Hans-Josef, Die deutsche sozialistische Arbeiterbewegung bis 1914. Frank-
furt-Main, 1979
Sozialismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie. 4th ed. Berlin, 1976
Steinmetz, George, Regulating the Social: The Welfare State and Local Politics in
Imperial Germany. Princeton, 1993
Stern, Fritz, The Failure of Illiberalism. New York, 1992
Strutynski, Peter, Die Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Marxisten und Revisionisten in
der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung der Jahrhundertwende. Koln, 1976
Sweezy, Paul, The Theory of Capitalist Development. New York, 1946
Taylor, Charles, The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA, 1992
Tetzel, Manfred, Philosophie und Okonomie oder das Exempel Bernstein. Berlin,
1984
Theiner, Peter, Sozialer Liberalismus und deutsche Weltpolitik: Friedrich Naumann
im Wilhelminischen Deutschland, 1860-1919. Baden-Baden, 1983
Tschubinski, Wadim, Wilhelm Liebknecht. EineBiographie. Bernhardjahnel, trans.
Berlin, 1973
Tsuzuki, Chushichi, H. M. Hyndman and British Socialism. London, 1961
Tucker, Robert C , Philosophy and Myth in Karl Marx. 2nd ed. Cambridge, 1972
The Value Controversy. Ian Steedman, ed. London, 1981
van der Berg, Axel, The Immanent Utopia. Princeton, 1988
van der Linden, Harry, Kantian Ethics and Socialism. Indianapolis, 1988
Victorian Liberalism: Nineteenth Century Political Thought and Practice. Richard
Bellamy, ed. London, 1990
Volkagonov, Dmitri, Lenin. New York, 1994
Vorlander, Karl, Kant und Marx: Ein Beitrag zur Philosophie des Sozialismus.
Tubingen, 1926
(
Walther, Rudolf, ". . .abernachderSundflutkommenwirundnurwir": Zusammen-
3
bruchstheorie , Marxismus und politisches Defizit in der SPD, 1890-1914.
Frankfurt-Main, 1981
Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice. New York, 1983
Wegner, Konstanze, Theodor Barth und die Freisinnige Vereinigung: Studien zur
Geschichte des Linksliberalismus im wilhelminischen Deutschland, 1893-1910.
Tubingen, 1968
 Select bibliography 273

West, Cornel, The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought. New York, 1991
Wette, Wolfram, Kriegstheorien Deutscher Sozialisten. Stuttgart, 1971
White, Stephen K., Political Theory and Postmodernism. Cambridge, 1991
Willey, Thomas. Back to Kant. Detroit, 1978
Winkler, Heinrich August, Liberalismus und Antiliberalismus. Gottingen, 1979
Der Schein der Normalitdt. Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung in der Weimarer
Republic 1924-1930. Berlin-Bonn, 1985
Von der Revolution zur Stabilisierung: Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung in der
Weimarer Republik, 1918 bis 1924. Berlin-Bonn, 1984
Wistrich, Robert S., Revolutionary Jews from Marx to Trotsky. New York, 1976
Wollstein, Giinther, Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg: LetzterErbe Bismarcks, erstes
Opfer der Dolchstosslegende. Gottingen, 1995
Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth-Century Patterns in Western Europe and the
United States. Ira Katznelson and Aristide Zolberg, eds. Princeton,
1986
Zarusky, Jurgen, Die deutschen Sozialdemokraten und das sowjetische Modell:
Ideologische Auseinandersetzungen und aussenpolitische Konzeptionen,
1917-1933. Munich, 1992

ARTICLES IN JOURNALS
Barber, Benjamin R., "An Epitaph for Marxism," Social Science and Modern
Society 33.1 (1995), pp. 22-26
Blackburn, Robin, "Fin de Siecle: Socialism after the Crash," New Left Review
185 (1991), pp. 5-66
Brown, Doug, "Thorstein Veblen Meets Eduard Bernstein: Toward an Institu-
tionalist Theory of Mobilization Politics," Journal of Economic Issues 25.3
(September 1991), pp. 689-708
Carsten, Francis, "Georg von Vollmar: A Bavarian Social Democrat," Journal of
Contemporary History 25 (1990), pp. 317-335
Colletti, Lucio, "The Theory of Crash," Telos 13 (Fall, 1972), pp. 34-36
Fetscher, Iring, "Das Verhaltnis des Marxismus zu Hegel," Marxismusstudien III
(1960), pp. 66-169
Fletcher, Roger, "Revisionism and Wilhelmine Imperialism," Journal of Contem-
porary History 23 (1988), pp. 347-366
"Revisionism and Nationalism: Eduard Bernstein's Views on the National
Question, 1900-1914," in Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 11.1
(1984), pp. 103-117
"Cobden as Educator: The Free-Trade Internationalism of Eduard Bern-
stein," The American Historical Review 83 (1983), pp. 561-578
"In the Interest of Peace and Progress: Eduard Bernstein's Socialist Foreign
Policy," Review of International Studies 9 (1983), pp. 79-93
"British Radicalism and German Revisionism: The Case of Eduard Bernstein,"
The International History Review 4.3 (1982), pp. 339-370
"A Revisionist Looks at Imperialism: Eduard Bernstein's Critique of Imperial-
ism and Kolonialpolitik, 1900-1914," Central European History 12 (1979), pp.
237-271
274 Select bibliography
"World Power Without War: Eduard Bernstein's Proposals for Alternative
Weltpolitik" Australian Journal for Politics and History 25 (1979), pp.
228-236
"Bernstein in Britain: Revisionism and Foreign Affairs," The International
History Review 1 (1979), pp. 349-375
"An English Advocate in Germany: Eduard Bernstein's Analysis of Anglo-
German Relations, 1900-1914," Canadian Journal of History 13 (1978), pp.
209-235
Fricke, Dieter, "Zum Bruch Eduard Bernsteins mit den 'Sozialistischen Monat-
sheften' im Herbst 1914," BzG (1975/3), pp. 454-468
"Die Ruckkehr Eduard Bernsteins in das Deutsche Reich 1901," Zeitschriftfur
Geschichtswissenschaft 22.12 (1974), pp. 1,341-1,347
Fukuyama, Francis, "The End of History," The National Interest 16 (Summer,
1989), pp. 3-18
Fulberth, Georg, "Zur Genese des Revisionismus in der deutschen Sozialdemok-
ratie vor 1914," Das Argument 13.1-2 (March 1971), pp. 1-21
Gorman, Robert A., "Empirical Marxism," History and Theory 20.4 (1981), pp.
403-423.
Heimann, Horst, "Die Bedeutungdes revisionistisch-reformistischenTheoriean-
satzes Bernsteins fur den demokratischen Sozialismus," Neue Gesellschaft 24
(December 1977), pp. 1,017-22
Hill, C. E., "Sidney Webb and the Common Good: 1887-1889," History of
Political Thought 14.4 (Winter, 1993), pp. 591-622
Keck, Timothy, "The Marburg School and Ethical Socialism," The Social Science
Journal 14.3 (1977), pp. 105-119
Kleger, Heinz, "Evolutionarer Sozialismus. Oder: warum noch einmal Bernstein
lesen?," Widerspruch 19/90 (1990), pp. 38-52
Koth, Harald, "Der subjektive Faktor in Theorie und Praxis bei Karl Kautsky und
Eduard Bernstein (1890-1896)," Beitrdge zur Marx-Engels-Forschung 16
(1984), pp. 265-270
Marks, Harry, "The Sources of Reformism in the Social Democratic Party of
Germany, 1890-1914," Journal of Modern History 11 (1939), pp.
334-356
Morgan, David W., The Father of Revisionism Revisited: Eduard Bernstein,"
Journal of Modern History 51 (September, 1979), pp. 525-532
MourTe, Chantal, "Toward a Liberal Socialism?," Dissent (Winter, 1993), pp.
81-87
Offe, Claus, "Thesis on the Theory of State," New German Critique 6 (Fall, 1975),
pp. 137-147
Pierson, Stanley, "Ernest Belfort Bax: 1854-1926. The Encounter of Marxism
and Late Victorian Culture," The Journal of British Studies 12 (1972), pp.
39-60
Radice, Giles, "The Case for Revisionism," The Political Quarterly 59 (1988), pp.
404-415
Rogers, H. Kendall, "Eduard Bernstein Speaks to the Fabians: A Turning-Point
in Social Democratic Thought?," International Review of Social History 28
(1983), pp. 320-338
 Select bibliography 275

Schulze, Hans, " 'Bernstein-Renaissance' - Tendenzen, Ziele, Folgen," Deutsche

Zeitschrift fur Philosophie 29.6 (1981), pp. 671-681
Steger, Manfred, "Historical Materialism and Ethics: Eduard Bernstein's Revi-
sionist Perspective," History of European Ideas 14.5 (1992), pp. 647-663
Tennstedt, Florian, "Arbeiterbewegung und Familiengeschichte bei Eduard
Bernstein und Ignaz Zadek," Internationale wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz
zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung 18.4 (1982), pp. 451-481
Vadasz, Sandor, "Begriff und Auslegung der Reform bei Bernstein," Hallesche
Studien zur Geschichte der Sozialdemokratie 13 (1985), pp. 90-109
Wistrich, Robert S., "Back to Bernstein?", Encounter 50.6 (1978), pp. 75-80

ARTICLES IN COLLECTIONS
Bohm-Bawerk, Eugen, "Karl Marx and the Close of his System," in Sweezy, Karl
Marx and the Close of his System
Duncan, Graeme, "The Marxist Theory of the State," in Parkinson, Marx and
Marxisms
Eley, Geoff, "Liberalism, Europe, and the Bourgeoisie, 1860-1914," in Black-
bourn and Evans, The German Bourgeoisie
Freudenthal, Gideon, "Otto Neurath: From Authoritarian Liberalism to Empiri-
cism," in Dascal and Griingard, Knowledge and Politics
Gneuss, Christian, "The Precursor: Eduard Bernstein," in Labedz, Revisionism
Heller, Agnes, "On Formal Democracy," in John Keane, ed. Civil Society and the
State
Himmelmann, Gerhard, "Die Rolle der Werttheorie in Bernsteins Konzept der
politischen Okonomie des Sozialismus," in Heimann and Meyer, Bernstein
und der demokratische Sozialismus
Kocka, Jiirgen, "Problems of Working-Class Formation in Germany," in Ira
Katznelson and Aristide Zolberg, Working-Class Formation: Nineteenth Cen-
tury Patterns in Western Europe and the United States
Meyer, Thomas, "Elemente einer Gesamttheorie des Demokratischen Sozialis-
mus und Hinderung ihrer Durchsetzung in der Weimarer Republik," in
Heimann and Meyer, Reformsozialismus und Sozialdemokratie
Miller, Susanne, "Bernstein's Political Position 1914-1920," in Fletcher, Bern-
stein to Brandt
Mommsen, Hans, "Nationalismus und die nationale Frage im Denken Eduard
Bernsteins," in Heimann and Meyer, Bernstein und der demokratische
Sozialismus
Neubach, Helmut, "Von Franz Ziegler bis Eduard Bernstein: Die Vertreter der
Stadt Breslau im Deutschen Reichstag, 1871-1918," in Johannes Barmann,
Alois Gerlach, and Ludwig Petry, Geschichtliche Landeskunde, vol. II, Wies-
baden, 1969
Neumann, Lothar F., "Die Werttheorie und der Sozialismus bei Marx, Bernstein
und in der heutigen Diskussion," in Heimann and Meyer, Bernstein und der
demokratische Sozialismus
Pachter, Henry, "The Ambiguous Legacy of Eduard Bernstein," in Bronner,
Socialism in History
276 Select bibliography

Schroder, Hans-Christoph, "Eduard Bernsteins Stellung zum Imperialismus vor

dem Ersten Weltkrieg," in Heimann and Meyer, Bernstein und der demok-
ratische Sozialismus
Schulz, Gerhard, "Eduard Bernstein und die marxistische Theorie," in Das
Zeitalter der Gesellschaft. Gerhard Schulz, ed. Munich, 1969
Spreer, Frithjof, "Bernstein, Max Weber und das Verhaltnis von Wissenschaft
und Politik in der Gegenwartsdiskussion," in Heimann and Meyer, Bernstein
und der Demokratische Sozialismus
Winkler, Heinrich August, "Eduard Bernstein as Critic of Weimar Social
Democracy," in Fletcher, Bernstein to Brandt

FOREWORDS AND INTRODUCTIONS

Arendt, Hannah, "Introduction," to Nettl, Rosa Luxemburg, pp. ix-xxxii
Hirsch, Helmut, "Einleitung," to Bernstein, Ein revisionistisches Sozialismusbild,
pp. 11-50
Hook, Sidney, "Introduction," to Eduard Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism.
Edith C. Harvey, ed. and trans. New York, 1961, pp. vii-xxxii
Liebknecht, Wilhelm, "Vorwort," to Protokoll des International Arbeiter-Con-
gresses zu Paris. Abgehalten vom 14 bis 20 Juli 1889. Niirnberg, 1890
Sandkuhler, Hans-Jorg, "Kant, neukantischer Sozialismus, Revisionismus," in
Sandkiihler and de la Vega, Marxismus und Ethik, pp. 7-44
Schuster, Dieter, "Einleitung," to Eduard Bernstein, Die Voraussetzungen des
Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie. Berlin, 1973, pp. vii-xix
Tudor, Henry, "Introduction," to PS, pp. xv-xli
"Introduction," to MS, pp. 1-37
 Index

ADAV (General German Workers' and Der Sozialdemokrat, 51

Association), 36 and the Eisenachers, 37
Adler, Max, 116, 153, 248, 251 and Engels' death, 71
Adler, Victor, 20, 82, 84, 118 and German nationalism, 191
Adorno, Theodor W., 251 and the German workers' movement,
advanced capitalism, 9, 10, 11 37-38, 42
Agrarian Question, 82 and Hochberg, 46
Anderson, Charles W., 259 idea of collapse of capitalism, 32, 54,
Anti-Duhring (Engels), 39-40, 41, 45, 46, 77,80
48,91, 92, 93-94, 171 and the "Leipzig High Treason Trials,"
anti-Semitism— 30-31
and Duhring, 39 and the mass-strike debate, 183, 185,
Bernstein's writings on, 172 186, 187, 188
in Prussia, 39 and the Millerand Affair, 155-156
and Zionism, 222 principles and political expediency, 178
Arendt, Hannah, 19 and scientific socialism, 108
Auer, Ignaz, 33, 62, 71, 77, 84, 118, 162, and the SPD, 49, 77
166,212 bureaucrats, 211-212, 213, 214, 215
on class, 173-174 Dresden Party Conference, 179-180
Aveling, Edward, 71 Erfurt Party Program, 63-64
Liibeck Party Conference (1901),
Bakunin, Mikhail, 238 168, 169
Barber, Benjamin, 257, 260 socialist revolution blueprint, 63, 73
Barth, Ernst, 114 Youngsters' rebellion, 60, 61
Barth, Theodor, 157, 191, 194-195, 196 and the steamship subsidy bill, 52
Bassermann, Ernst, 159, 160 Women under Socialism, 39
Baudrillard, Jean, 254 Ben-Gurion, David, 222
Bax, Ernest Belfort, 69-70, 153, 154, Bentham, Jeremy, 7
206-207 Berlin, Sir Isaiah, 19
Bebel, August, 4, 118 "Berne International Conference for the
and Duhring, 39 Facilitation of International
and Bernstein's "Canossa Pilgrimage" Peace," 204
to England, 46-47 Bernstein, Aaron (Bernstein's uncle),
on Bernstein's character, 20 21-23, 32, 70
and Bernstein's "noble patriotism," 197 Bernstein, Eduard—
and Bernstein's revisionism, 77, 78, and Duhring, 39
83-84, 151, 156-157, 178-179 assessment of, 247-252
and colonialism, 205 banking career, 26
and cooperation with the liberals, and Bolshevism, 224
194-195 and the British labor movement, 66-70
criticisms of Bernstein, 156-157, 161 death, 247
death, 217 early revisionism, 3-4

277
278 Index
Bernstein, Eduard (cont.) Bernstein, Max (Bernstein's brother), 25,
and Engels' Anti-Duhring, 40 33
in England, 47, 57-59, 66-70, 166-167 Bernstein, Regine (formerly
family origins and childhood, 21-25 Zadek-Schattner, Bernstein's wife),
images of, 19-21 56-56, 245
last years, 245-247 "Bernstein Renaissance" (1970s), 146
lectures— Bismarck, Prince Otto von, 28, 29, 31, 32
"How Is Scientific Socialism anti-socialist laws, 41-45, 53, 57, 60
Possible?," 167 dismissal of, 59
"What is Socialism," 223 and Lassalle, 36
"What Marx Really Taught," 74 social legislation, 44, 51
marriage, 56 Blanqui, Auguste, 236
nervous breakdown, 70 Bloch, Joseph, 166, 191-192, 199, 210
as Reichstag representative, 167-171 Bios, Wilhelm, 44, 50
and religion, 25-26 Blum, Leon, 251
return to Germany, 165-167 Bobbio, Norberto, 251
school years, 25-27 Bohm-Bawerk, Eugen von, 120, 124-125,
"sexual education," 27 126
as a socialist, 27-34 Bolshevism, Bernstein's critique of, 224,
"Stuttgart Letter," 84 236-241
in Switzerland, 45-57 bourgeois press, and the Revisionist
and the USPD, 224 Controversy, 162-165
works— Brandt, Willy, 253
"The Bolshevist Brand of Socialism," Braun, Adolf, 243
239-240 Braun, Heinrich, 160-162, 163
"Class and Class Struggle," 173 Braun, Lily, 176
Commentary on the Gorlitz Party Braunthal, Julius, 10
Program, 227-228 Breitscheid, Rudolf, 191
Cromwell and Communism, 58, 172, Brentano, Lujo, 5, 31, 33, 38, 220
248 Breslau Party Congress (1895), 72
The Essence of Economics and EconomicBreuel, Ernst, 50-51
Development, 225 Bright, John, 220
Ferdinand Lassalle As a Social Britain—
Reformer, 58, 248 Bernstein in England, 47, 57-59,
From Sect to Party, 111 66-70, 166-167
The German Revolution, 225 and the Kaiser's foreign policy,
History of the Berlin Labor Movement, 202-203
172 labor movement, 47, 66-70
The Labor Movement, 177 liberals, 67-69, 131,210
"The Nationalism of Fichte and Bronner, Stephen Eric, 174, 248
Lassale," 202 Brunhuber, Robert, 164
"Parliamentarianism and Social Biichner, Georg, 34
Democracy," 172 Biichner, Ludwig, 47, 111
The Preconditions of Socialism, 85, Buckle, Thomas Henry, 47
151, 155, 157, 159-160, 173, 236 Bukharin, M., 239
Socialism Past and Present, 225-226 Bulow, Chancellor Prince Bernhard von,
"The Task of the Hour," 246-247 166, 176, 189
"Three Star Article," 173 "Bulow Bloc," 190-191
"Twelve Principles of the Political Butler, Judith, 254
Mass Strike," 188
and Zionism, 221-223 Calwer, Richard, 193
Bernstein, Jakob (Berstein's father), 21, Campbell-Bannerman, Henry, 220
23, 24, 25, 26 Capital (Marx), 40, 58, 71, 76, 89, 93, 117
Bernstein, Johanna (Bernstein's mother), and Bolshevism, 238
21,23-24,25 and the labor theory of value, 121
 Index 279
and Marxism socialism, 89, 90, 91 Darwin, Charles, 47
capitalism— Origin of the Species, 93
advanced, 9, 10, 11 David, Eduard, 59, 83, 116, 156, 209,
and Bernstein's revisionism, 80-81 212
and historical materialism, 112-113 and the First World War, 219, 220,
and liberal socialism, 139 221
post-industrial, 253-254 democracy—
and scientific socialism, 94-95, 102 and Bernstein's evolutionary socialism,
and theories of value, 120-128 7-8, 10, 143
theory of "collapse" of, 32, 54, 70, 77, as a cooperative ideal, 257
80, 94, 95, 102, 153 direct, 131, 143, 228
Caprivi, Leo von, 59 extending political and economic,
Carey, Henry, 38 140-147
Catholic Centre Party, 176, 190 representative, 143
Central Working Alliance, 231 Democratic Union Party, 194
civil liberty, 138 Dietz, J. H. W., 50
civil society, and liberal socialism, 135, Dilthey, Wilhelm, 116, 248
136, 137-138, 258 direct democracy, 131, 143, 228
class— Dolchstosslegende, 241-242
and Bernstein's revisionism, 82, Duhring, Eugen, 7, 31, 34, 38-39, 111
173-174, 176, 205 see also Anti-Duhring
in the Weimer Republic, 233
class conflict, and "liberal" socialism, Ebert, Friedrich, 12, 213, 217, 219, 225,
132-133 231,241,243
Cobden, Richard, 7, 67-68, 210 economic democracy, extending, 140-147
Cohen, G. A., 125 economic policies, and left-liberalism,
Cohen, Hermann, 116, 118 158
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 68 Einstein, Albert, 21, 220
Coletti, Lucio, 125 "Eisenacher" socialists, 30-31, 32, 36-37,
colonialism, and culture, 205-211 38, 53, 144, 213, 217, 244
commodity fetishism, 121-122 Eisner, Kurt, 116, 180, 215
Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels), Elm, Adolf von, 182
9,32, 37,43, 153 Elster, Jon, 125
and Bolshevism, 236, 237-238 empiricism, and Bernstein's evolutionary
and historical materialism, 110 socialism, 117
and liberalism, 135 encirclement theory, 241
and scientific socialism, 91 end of socialism, 6, 14-15
and the SPD Youngsters' rebellion, 60, and evolutionary socialism, 253-260
61 Engels, Friedrich, 4, 8, 19, 26, 118
Comte, A., 99 Anti-Duhring, 39^0, 41, 45, 46, 48,
Constitutional Patriotism, 198 91,92,93-94, 171
cooperation, and evolutionsary socialism, and Bernstein in England, 69, 70-71
139-140 Bernstein as successor of, 249
cooperative ideal, democracy as a, 257 Bernstein's relations with, 47, 55, 58,
cosmopolitan patriotism, 202 59,71
"Covenant of Peace among the Nations," and Bernstein's revisionism, 78-79,
203 80-81,84, 103, 144, 164
critical idealism, 116, 157 and Bernstein's wife, 57
critical socialism, 107 and Bolshevism, 237, 238
Critical Theory, 251 and colonialism, 205, 206
cultural rights, 208 and criticism of Kautsky, 49-50
culture, and colonialism, 205-211 and critics of Bernstein, 153, 154
Cunow, Heinrich, 219, 227 death, 71
and Der Sozialdemokrat, 51
Dahrendorf, Ralf, 10 and the Franco-Prussian War, 219
280 Index
Engels, Friedrich (cont.) Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 34, 36, 79
and the German workers' movement, and Bernstein's "noble patriotism,"
34, 37, 45 201-202
and the Gotha Program, 38 First World War, 217-223
and historical materialism, 110-112 and German war guilt, 241-244
and Hochberg, 45-46 Flesch, Karl, 46
influence on Bernstein, 248 Fourier, Charles, 79, 95, 105
and the "Lassalle Legend," 63 Fox, Charles James, 220
and liberal democracy, 134 France—
Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of 1848 revolution, 236
Classical German Philosophy, 111 Millerand Affair, 155-156
and Marxist socialism, 89-90 and the Moroccan Crisis (1905), 190
and the mass-strike debate, 186 Franco-Prussian War (1870), 27, 31, 172,
The Origin of the Family, Private Property 219, 244
and the State, 134 Frankfurt National Assembly, 24, 34
and scientific socialism, 92-94, 95, Frankfurt School of Social Research, 251
100-101, 175 free trade, 210, 223
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, 92 freedom, individual, 130, 137, 138
and the SPD— Freiheity Die (Liberty), 43
Erfurt Party Program, 64-65 French Labor Party, 110
policy of "intransigent opposition," French "Minimalist Program," 63
53-54, 55 French Revolution, 255
socialist revolution blueprint, 61-62 and liberal socialism, 136, 137, 139
Youngsters' rebellion, 60-61 Fritzsche, Friedrich, 29, 30
on the state, 130 Fukuyama, Francis, 253
see also Communist Manifesto
Erfurt Party Program (1891), 62-65, 66, Gay, Peter, 1
73, 80, 83, 91, 226 Geiser, Bruno, 44
and Bernstein's revisionism, 157, 175 General German Workers' Association
Kautsky's commentary on the, 91, (ADAV), 36
94-95 German Communist Party (KPD), 228,
and Kautsky's The Road to Power, 214 229, 232, 240
1921 revision of, 231 German Democratic Pary, 232
and scientific socialism, 100, 106, 107 German labor movement, 34-40
Erzberger, Matthias, 190 see also SPD (German Social
ethical socialism, 45, 74, 253 Democratic Party)
and Bernstein's revisionism, 97 German liberalism, 22
and instrumentalism, 259 decline of, 28, 33
ethics— "German Question," 196, 241
and historical materialism, 108-115 German Revolution (1918-19), 142,
and scientific socialism, 128 223-225, 236
and theories of value, 127-128 German social democracy, 2, 3, 34^40
ethnonationalism, 199-200, 201, 203, see also SPD (German Social
204,218 Democratic Party)
Eurocommunism, 253 German war guilt, and the socialist right,
European social democracy— 241-244
crisis of, 1,2 Gohre, Paul, 161
and pluralism, 256 Golitz Program (1921), 13, 226-229, 231
evolution and sexual behaviour, 207 Gotha Program (1875), 38, 63, 65
exchange value, 121 Gouldner, Alvin, 89
Great Depression (1873), 32, 49
Fabian socialism, and Bernstein, 66-68 Great War, 217-223
factory councils, 227-228 Grey, Sir Edward, 206, 209
Falkenhayn, Erich von, 201, 202 Grillenberger, Franz, 44, 51
Ferry, Luc, 251 Groener, Wilhelm, 231
 Index 281
Groh, Dieter, 62 Hyndman, Henry, 69-70, 153
Griin, Karl, 34
Guesde, Jules, 43, 155 ILP (Independent Labour Party), 68
"immiseration thesis," 82
Haase, Hugo, 218, 219, 222, 225 Imperial Government steamship bill,
Habermas Jiirgen, 198, 255 51-53
Haeckel, Ernst, 47 Independent Labour Party (ILP), 68
Hallgarten, Charles, 161 individual freedom—
Hardy, James Keir, 68 and liberal socialism, 137, 138
Harrington, Michael, 258-259 and the state, 130
Harrison, Austin F., 164-165 industrialization in Germany, 76, 158
Hasenclever, Wilhelm, 44, 50, 51
Hasselmann, Wilhelm, 43 Jacobinism, 172
Hatzfeldt, Countess Sophia von, 35, 36 Jacoby, Johann, 7, 24, 35
Hegel, G. W. F., 9, 75-76, 79, 92, 249 Jaures, Jean, 153, 219, 248, 251
and historical materialism, 111 Jevons, Stanley, 120
and neo-Kantianism, 115, 116, 117 journals—
and scientific socialism, 92, 93, 96, 100 revisionist, 171
Heidegger, Martin, 254 socialist, 47
Heidelberg Program (1925), 229, 231 Sozialdemokrat, Der, 42, 46^7, 49,
Heidelberg School, 116 50-51, 53, 57,66, 197
Heimann, Eduard, 230 Sozialistische Monatshefte (journal), 166,
Heine, Wolfgang, 83, 161, 179, 186-187, 199, 210, 220
210 Vorwarts, 47, 58, 79, 84, 165, 180, 240
Heller, Hermann, 230 Judaism, 21, 23, 26
Helphand, Alexander ("Parvus"), 80, 83, and Zionism, 221-223
153,183
Heretier, Louis, 76 Kampffmeyer, Paul, 84, 212
Hes, Moses, 34 Kant, Immanuel, 7, 11, 79, 107, 114,
Hildebrand, Gerhard, 180-181 115,203
Hilferding, Rudold, 234, 246 and colonialism, 209
historical materialism, 11 and cosmopolitan patriotism, 202
and ethics, 108-115 and liberalism, 136, 137
and scientific socialism, 96, 106 Perpetual Peace, 249
History of the 1848 French Revolution and representative democracy, 143
(Heretier), 76 see also neo-Kantianism
History of British Trade Unions (Webb), 56 Kautsky, Karl, 4, 12, 39, 118
Hitler, Adolf, 235, 246, 247 on Bernstein, 20
Hobhouse, L. T., 7, 68, 131 and Bernstein in England, 70
Hobson, J. A., 7, 68, 131 and Bernstein's empiricism, 115
Hoch, Gustav, 243 and Bernstein's "noble patriotism,"
Hochberg, Dr Karl, 45-46, 48, 75, 76, 197, 201
76-77 Bernstein's relations with, 47-49, 51,
Hollweg, Chancellor Theobald von 58, 245
Bethmann, 219 and Bernstein's revisionism, 78, 83, 84,
Hook, Sidney, 1 96, 97, 119, 152-153, 157, 171,
Horkheimer, Max, 251 178, 250
Hue, Otto, 159 and the state, 132
Hugenberg, Alfred, 192 and Bolshevism, 237
human rights— and colonialism, 205
and Bernstein's evolutionary socialism, criticisms of Bernstein, 161
119 Das Erfurter Programm, 91, 94-95
and liberalism, 136, 137-138 and democracy, 176
Humboldt, Alexander von, 21 and Engels' Anti-Duhring, 40
Hunley, J. D., 249 Engels' criticism of, 49-50
282 Index
Kautsky, Karl (com.) left-liberals—
and the First World War, 220, 221 democratic alliance with socialists,
and German nationalism, 191, 193-194 194-197, 218
and German war guilt, 244 and German nationalism, 190-191
and the KPD, 229 and the mass-strike debate, 186,
and liberalism, 135 188-189
and Marxism internationalism, 203 overtures to Bernstein, 157-162
and the mass-strike debate, 183, 185, Legien, Carl, 184-185, 231
186, 188 "Leipzig High Treason Trials," 30-31
and the Millerand Affair, 155-156 Lenin, V. I., 4, 118, 140, 153, 237, 239,
and Neue Zeit (journal), 50, 55, 58 240
and reformism, 143, 210-211 What is to Be Done?, 251
The Road to Power, 214-215 Leuthner, Karl, 193, 199, 203, 252
and scientific socialism, 100, 106, 108 liberal critics of Bernstein, 12
and the SPD, 54-55, 72, 75, 78 "liberal imperialism," 206
bureaucrats, 211, 212, 214-215, 216, liberal socialism, contemporary forms of,
217 251,257-260
Dresden Party Conference, 179, 180 liberalism—
Erfurt Party Program, 63-64, 91, and Bernstein's evolutionary socialism,
94-95 6-10, 119, 177
Liibeck Party Conference (1^01), British liberals, 67-69, 210
168, 169 German, 22
Keim, General, 192 and Bernstein's "noble patriotism,"
Kingsley, Charles, 68, 71 200-201
Korsch, Karl, 251 New Liberals, 68-69, 131, 138
KPD (German Communist Party), 228, and socialism, 119, 133-140, 147, 232
229, 232, 240 and the state, 131-134
Kreisky, Bruno, 253 and the "workers" question, 29-30
see also left-liberals
labor movement— Liebknecht, Karl, murder of, 225
British, 47, 66-70 Liebknecht, Wilhelm, 30, 31, 37, 55, 118,
German, 34-40 144
see also SPD (German Social and Bernstein's revisionism, 7, 84
Democratic Party) and Duhring, 39
Labor Question, The (Lange), 75 and the Erfurt Party Program, 63
labor unions, see trade unions and evolutionary socialism, 62
Labriola, Antonio, 100, 107, 237 and the First World War, 218
Lafargue, Paul, 43 and German nationalism, 193, 194
Lange, Friedrich Albert, 4, 7, 35, 45, 74, and the Gotha Program, 38, 63
133 and the Leipzig High Treason Trials, 30
Bernstein's study of, 75-76 and the mass-strike debate, 183, 185,
and neo-Kantianism, 103, 116-118 187
"regulative ideals," 113 and the SPD bureaucrats, 217
The Labor Question, 75 and the steamship subsidy bill, 52
Lassalle, Ferdinand, 31, 34, 35-36, 37, Vorwdrts (journal), 58
38, 39, 63, 75 Lobe, Paul, 20, 247
Bernstein's study of, 58-59, 63, 248 Locke, John, 136, 208
and the Gorlitz Party Program, 227 logical positivism, 251
and the role of the state, 130 Lukacs, Georg, 115, 248, 251
and the universal suffrage, 143 Luther, Martin, 37
Lassalleans (state socialists), 53 Luxemburg, Rosa, 4, 7, 12, 118, 163
Law of Incomplete Realization, 257 and Bernstein's empiricism, 115
League of Nations, 223-224, 225 and Bernstein's revisionism, 83, 84, 89,
Ledebour, Georg, 219 96-97, 119, 152, 153-155, 165,
Lederer, Emil, 230 171
 Index 283
and liberalism, 134-135 and Bernstein's revisionism, 71-85,
and the mass-strike debate, 183, 184, 151-157, 163-165,251
185, 187, 188 and Bismarck's anti-socialist laws, 45
murder of, 225 "Eisenacher" socialists, 30-31, 32,
Reform or Revolution?, 92, 95-97, 36-37, 38, 53
153-155 and factory councils, 227-228
and reformist gradualism, 143 and the German labor movement, 37,
and SPD bureaucrats, 217 41
Lyotard, Jean-Francois, 254 and German nationalism, 191-195
and historical materialism, 108-115
MacDonald, Ramsay, 68, 167, 220 and Liebknecht, 37
Malon, Benoit, 43 Marxism socialism in the 1890s, 89-97
Man, Hendrik de, 230 and the "New Left," 257
Marat, Jean Paul, 70 and political expediency, 181-182
Marburg School, 116, 117, 118 postive-inductive method of Marxist
marginal utility theories of value, 120, socialism, 99
124-126 and the SPD, 54-55, 59-60, 72,
Marx, Eleanor, 71 73-74
Marx, Karl, 4, 21,31 in the Weimar Republic, 232-234
and Bernstein, 12, 47, 248 and theories of value, 120-128, 133
Bernstein's criticisms of, 197 "theory of breakdown," 75
and Bernstein's evolutionary socialism, and the "Three-Star Article," 46
164 see also orthodox Marxism
and Bolshevism, 237-238, 239 Marxism-Leninism—
and colonialism, 205 Bernstein's critique of, 236-241
and critics of Bernstein, 154 collapse of, 1, 2, 253
Critique of the Gotha Program, 129 Massingham, H. W., 68
and Duhring, 39 Mayer, Gustav, 162
and the Franco-Prussian War, 219 Mehring, Franz, 153, 171, 195
and the French "Minimalist Program," Meinecke, Friedrich, 248
63 Menger, Carl, 120
and the German workers' movement, Michels, Robert, On the Sociology of
34, 35, 36, 37, 45 Parties in Modern Democracy,
and the Gotha Program, 38 215-216
and historical materialism, 109, 110, Michnik, Adam, 255
111, 114 Mill, John Stuart, 4, 7, 11, 68, 75
and Hochberg, 45-46 and liberalism, 136
"immiseration thesis," 82 and representative democracy, 143
and Kautsky, 50 Miller, Suzanne, 220
Lange on, 117 Millerand, Alexandra 155-156
and Lassalle, 63 Miquel, Johannes von, 30
and liberalism, 134, 135-136 Misere de la Philosophie, 57
and Marxism socialism, 89-90, 95-96 Mitterand, Francois, 253
On the Jewish Question, 129 modernity—
"Robinson Crusoe economists," 129 and Bernstein's evolutionary socialism,
and the role of the state, 128-130 9
and scientific socialism, 92, 93, and the state, 131
100-108 Molkenbuhr, Hermann, 191
see also Capital, Communist Manifesto Mommsen, Theodor, 5
Marx-Lafargue, Laura, 61 moral historicism, 109
Marxism— More, Sir Thomas, 28
and Bernstein's evolutionary socialism, Moroccan Crises, 189, 190, 193, 202
8-10 Morris, William, 44, 68
and Bernstein's "noble patriotism," Most, Johann, 43
203-204 Motteler, Julius, 49, 57
284 Index
MSPD (Majority Socialists), 231 Owen, Robert, 68, 79, 95, 105
Muller, Hermann, 213
pacificism, 220-221
Naphtali, Fritz, 146, 230 Palme, Olof, 253
Nathan, Paul, 166, 191 Pannekoek, Anton, 153
Nation, The (journal), 166 Paris Commune (1871), 27, 41, 130
nationalism— "Parvus" (Alexander Helphand), 80, 83,
and Bernstein's "noble patriotism," 153, 183
197-204 patriotism—
ethnonationalism, 199-200, 201, 203, Bernstein's theory of noble, 197-204
204,218 constitutional, 198
Prussian, 27 cosmopolitan, 202
threat of, 189-197 "Peace Manifesto," 220-221
Nationalist Controversy, 204 Pease, Edward, 67
nationalist revisionists, 192-194, 204, Peffer, R. G., 109, 122
211,252 Peus, Heinrich, 83, 156
and the First World War, 218-219 Philosophic Radicalism, and Bernstein,
Natorp, Paul, 116, 251 67-68
natural law, 136 Pierson, Stanley, 181
Naumann, Friedrich, 5, 12, 158-160, Plekhanov, George, 4, 80, 97, 118, 153
181,201 political democracy, extending, 140-147
and colonial policies, 209 political economy, and theories of value,
Demokratie und Kaisertum, 160 120-128
Nechaiev, Sergei, 238 Popper, Karl, 109, 112,251
Nelson, Leonard, 230 post-modernism, 254
neo-Kantianism, 95, 115-119 Praktiker, 1?>-1^
and Bernstein's revisionism, 74, 75-76, private property—
97, 157, 178,251 and capitalism, 123
and Bolshevism, 239 right to, 147
and ethics, 114, 115 and the "transition question," 228
Marburg School, 116, 117, 118 protectionism, 210
and scientific socialism, 103-104, Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph, 57, 123, 127
107-108 Prussia—
Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 50 anti-Semitism, 23, 26
NeueZeit (journal), 50, 55, 58, 166, 179, 1848 revolution, 24
215 nationalism, 27
and Bernstein's revisionism, 75, 79, 84, system of government, 24-25
97, 165
Neurath, Otto, 251 Quark, Max, 59
New Fatherland Association, 220
New Liberals, 68-69, 138 Radicalism, Philosophic, 67-68
and the state, 131 Reform or Revolution? (Luxemburg), 92,
newspapers, and the Revisionist 95-97, 153-155
Controversy, 162-165 reformist gradualism, 140, 142, 201,
Nietzsche, F., 192-193 228-229, 248
noble patriotism, Bernstein's theory of, Reichstag representative, Bernstein as,
197-204 167-171
Noske, Gustav, 192, 193, 219, 225 religion, Bernstein's views on, 25-26
Nove, Alec, 125 Renaut, Alain, 251
revisionism, 71-85, 89, 90-91, 96-97,
Oberwinder, Heinrich, 48 151, 176-204
On Social Peace (Schulze-Gavernitz), 75 and Bernstein's "noble patriotism,"
Oppenheimer, Franz, 5, 157, 158 197-204
Origin of the Species (Darwin), 93 and Bernstein's writings, 171-175
Oswald, Eugen, 71 and the bourgeois press, 162-165
 Index 285
critics of, 152-155, 156-157 Schulze-Delitzsch, Hermann, 22, 30
and the Dresden Party Conference Schulze-Gavernitz, Gerhard von, 75
(1903), 179-182 Schumpeter, Joseph, Capitalism, Socialism
and left-liberalism, 157-162 and Democracy, 163
and the Liibeck Party Conference Schweitzer, Johann-Baptiste, 36
(1901), 168-169 science—
and Marxist socialism, 89-91, 96-97, natural and social, 98-99, 102
163-165 and teleology, 101-108
and the mass-strike debate, 182-189 scientific socialism, 91, 92-108
Revisionist Controversy, 12-13, 20, Bernstein's refutation of, 167-168
72-85, 228 and ethics, 118
and SPD bureaucrats, 211-217 and theories of value, 127
and the threat of nationalism, 189-197 SDAP (German Social Democratic
see also nationalist revisionists Workers' Party, later SPD), 38
revolution, and reformist gradualism, 142 sexual behaviour, and evolution, 207
revolution (1848), 24, 129, 236 Shaw, George Bernard, 7, 67
Ricardo, David, 121, 122 Sighele, Scipio, 76
Richter, Eugen, 5 Simmel, Georg, 116
Rickert, Heinrich, 116 Singer, Paul, 185, 195, 205
Rifkin, Jeremy, 257 Smith, Adam, 121, 122
rights— social democracy—
cultural, 208 German, 2, 3, 34^10
and economic democracy, 147 and left-liberalism, 157-158
industrial, 144 and liberal socialism, 133
and liberal socialism, 134, 135-136, see also SPD (German Social
258 Democratic Party)
political, 144, 186 Social Democratic Association, 222
to private property, 147 social justice, ideal of, 260
see also human rights social legislation, under Bismarck, 44, 51
Robinson, Joan, 125 "Social Question," 255
Rodbertus, Carl, 34 socialism—
Roemer, John, 125 and liberalism, 119, 133-140, 147
Rosebery, Archibald Philip Primrose, fifth meaning of, 89-119
Earl of, 206 and science, 98-101
Rosselli, Carlo, 251 see also scientific socialism
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 143 Socialism and the Capitalist Economic Order
Ruskin, John, 68 (Wolf), 75
Russian revolutionaries (1905), and the socialist colonialism, 206-211
mass-strike debate, 183-184 Socialist International, Stuttgart Congress
(1907), 209
Saint-Simon, Claude Henri, Comte de, 79 Sombart, Werner, 124, 125, 126, 163
Sand, George, 47^48 Sorel, Georges, 251
Schattner, Carl, 56 Soviet communism, collapse of, 253
Scheidemann, Philip, 213, 219, 225, 241, Sozialdemokraty Der (SPD journal), 42,
243 46^7, 49, 50-51, 53, 57, 66, 197
Scheu, Andreas, 48 Sozialistische Monatshefte (journal), 166,
Scheu, Josef, 48 199, 210, 220
Schiller, Friedrich, 26, 137 Spartakus Uprising (1919), 225
Schippel, Max, 193,210 SPD (German Social Democratic
Schmidt, Helmut, 256 Party)—
Schmidt, Konrad, 7, 83, 97, 116, 251 and Bernstein as Reichstag candidate,
Schmoller, Gustav, 31 170
Schonlank, Bruno, 59, 73-74, 169 "Bernstein Renaissance" (1970s), 146
Schorske, Carl, 13 and Bernstein's evolutionary socialism,
Schramm, C. A., 46 4, 5, 147, 151, 175
286 Index
SPD (German Social Democratic Party) Youngsters faction, 60-61, 110
(com.) see also Erfurt Party Program;
and Berstein's "noble patriotism/* revisionism; Sozialdemokrat, Der
197-204 Spencer, Herbert, 210
and Bernstein's writings, 173, 174, 175 Spengler, Oswald, 248
and Bismarck's anti-socialist laws, Stalin, Joseph, 246
41-45, 53, 57, 60 Stampfer, Friedrich, 246, 247
blueprint for "reformist" party state, role of the, 128-134
program, 175 Staudinger, Franz, 116, 251
and Braun, 162 Steenson, Gary, 52, 54, 185
Breslau Party Congress, 72 Stinnes, Hugo, 231
Chemnitz Party Conference (1912), Stresemann, Gustav, 12, 159
181,217 surplus value, theory of, 120, 122,
colonialism and culture, 210-211 126-127, 128
and cooperation with the liberals, Sweezy, Paul, 125
194-197 Switzerland—
Dresden Party Conference (1903), Bernstein's exile in, 45-57
176-182 SPD conferences in, 43
and the First World War, 218-221
general elections— taxation, and the SPD, 170-171
(1903), 177-178 teleology, and science, 101-108
(1924), 244 Thalheimer, August, 233
and German nationalism, 190, Third World communism, 253
191-197 "Three-Star Article," 46
and German war guilt, 241-244 Tillich, Paul, 230
Gorlitz Party Program (1921), 13, trade unions—
226-229,231 and democracy, 141-142, 144-145
Gotha Program (1875), 38, 63, 65, 66 and the Gorlitz Program (1921), 228
Hanover Party Conference (1899), 155, and left-liberals, 158
156 and liberal socialism, 133
Heidelberg Program (1925), 229, 231 and the mass-strike debate, 182-189
Jena Party Conference (1905), 185 and theories of value, 127
and the "Kautsky-Bebel axis," 55 trancendental ideal, in evolutionary
Liibeck Party Conference (1901), socialism, 101-102, 103-104
168-169 "transition problem," in socialist theory,
Mannheim Party Conference (1906), 80-81, 228
185,216 Trotsky, Leon, 183, 239
and Marxism, 54-55, 59-60 Tudor, Henry, 43, 53, 79
and the mass-strike debate, 182-189
moderates, 44, 51-53, 54, 60, 62 universal suffrage, 130, 143, 144
and the "New Course" in Germany, use-value, 121, 126
59-65 USPD ("Independent" Social Democratic
origins, 38 Party), 222-223, 224, 225, 226,
policy of "intransigent opposition," 228, 229, 241, 244
53-54, 55 "Utopia," 28, 29
and political democracy, 141-142 Utopian socialists, 95, 105
radicals, 44-45, 49, 52
and the steamship subsidy bill, 51-53 Vahlteich, Julius, 30
taxation policy, 170-171 value, theories of, 120-128
theory-practice gap, 55, 171, 230-236 VDAV (Congress of German Workers'
and the USPD, 224, 244 Associations), 36-37
victory of the "party bureaucrats," Verein, 31-32
211-217 Versailles Treaty (1919), 242
in the Weimar Republic, 230-236 Vollmar, Georg von, 46, 59, 72, 73,
Weltanschauung, 33-34, 54 178-179
 Index 287
and the Dresden Party Conference, Weimar Constitution, 231
179,180 Weimar Republic, 13, 14, 176, 196,
Volrlander, Karl, 7, 20, 116, 118, 157, 224-229
251 dynamics of social change, 230-236
Vorwdns (journal), 47, 58, 79, 84, 165, Weitling, Wilhelm, 34, 95
180, 240 West, Cornel, 5-6
Wilhelm I, King of Prussia (later German
wages— Emperor), 27, 28
system of wage determination, 128 Wilhelm II, Kaiser, 41, 59, 189, 190, 202
and theories of value, 122-123, 127 Wilson, Woodrow, 223
Walzer, Michael, 255 Windelband, Wilhelm, 116
Webb, Beatrice, 7, 56, 67, 68 Winkler, Heinrich August, 242
Webb, Sidney, 4, 7, 56, 67, 144 Wolf, Julius, 75
Weber, Max, 5, 9, 29, 31 "workers" question, 29-30
Archives for Social Science, 249
on Bernstein, 20-21 Young Liberal Clubs, 159
and colonial policies, 209
and Naumann, 158, 159 Zadek, Ignaz, 56
and neo-Kantianism, 107-108 Zadek, Lily, 222
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Zadek-Schattner, Regine (Bernstein's
Capitalism, 20-21 wife), 56-56, 245
and SPD bureaucracy, 216 Zetkin, Klara, 193, 233
Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, 42, 72, 231 Zionism, 221-223