social democrats form the extreme wing of the socialists, though, at present, many of them are inclined to lay so much stress on equality of enjoyment, regardless of the value of one’s labor, that they might, perhaps, more properly be called communists. but as they are usually known as social democrats, and as the name is not likely to lead to misunderstanding, there is no reason why we should not adhere to the ordinary appellation, especially as there are those among them who do not favor equality. they ought scarcely to be called simply socialists.
they have two distinguishing characteristics. the vast majority of them are laborers, and, as a rule, they expect the violent overthrow of existing institutions by revolution to precede the introduction of the socialistic state. i would not, by any means, say that they are all revolutionists, but the most of them undoubtedly are. the tendency of their popular writings is revolutionary. they are calculated to accustom the thoughts to revolution, and to excite the feelings of laborers to such a pitch as to prepare them for risking all in battle. if one of their prominent organs, as, for example, their people’s calendar (der arme conrad—“the poor conrad”) for 1878, is examined, one finds revolution mentioned frequently,[205] and invariably in such manner as to popularize revolution as revolution. even the most exceptionable doings of the masses in the french revolution, in the revolutions of 1848, and in the insurrection of the commune in 1871, are glorified. every fallen laborer becomes a hero and a martyr. hitherto the people—so the readers of the arme conrad are told—have fought for others, but the next time they engage in battle it will be for themselves, and they will then obtain their well-earned wages.
the most general demands of the social democrats are the following: the state should exist exclusively for the laborers; land and capital must become collective property, and production be carried on unitedly. private competition, in the ordinary sense of the term, is to cease. officers, especially charged with this function, are, by means of carefully collected statistics, to regulate production according to the needs of the people. our present money is to be replaced by money representing labor units; labor is to become the sole purchasing power. one of the party programmes requires a distribution of products according to the needs of each recipient. some of the planks of the social democratic platforms would find sympathy with the best people in america and england. so, for example, their unceasing demand that even the present state should forbid work on sunday, the employment of very young children, and labor injurious to the health and morality of working-women. social democrats have never failed to recognize the advantages of education and the need of improved methods of instruction. their cry, as that of all popular leaders, is to increase the appropriations for educational purposes. it is unfortunately significant[206] that while in america proposals to decrease the pitiable salaries of school-teachers and otherwise diminish school expenses are often calmly and favorably listened to by even the poorer people, in germany no popular politician or newspaper would dare advocate such measures. every project for increasing the school appropriations is there regarded with favor by the great masses of the people.
even now, despite the movement of the party, as a whole, towards communism, many of the best educated and most intelligent of the social democrats are, no doubt, socialistically, rather than communistically, inclined. i am speaking here not of the professional agitators—those who make the most noise. these classes control the social democratic conventions, and since the death of lassalle they have approached more and more nearly to the purest communism. by those who are socialistically inclined, i mean such members of the party as do not think of all as occupying like positions in the socialistic state, but expect it will be organized more on the plan of an army. it is, in fact, on this account that so many social democrats look with complacency on the great standing armies of modern times, which include every able-bodied man in their service for a considerable period of his life. they are training-schools for the future social organization. it will thus be seen that emulation and rivalry are provided for, as at present in the army. those who serve society best will be promoted. the higher officers will receive larger salaries than the lower, while the rank and file will correspond to the laborers of to-day. industry and intelligence will enable one to rise, but there will be no heaping up of private productive property from[207] generation to generation, for all the means of production will be in the hands of the state—that is, of society collectively. property which will not enable one to avoid labor, as books, pictures, statuary, all sorts of ornaments, household furniture, etc., will remain private property, and be transmitted from father to son. the children of the higher orders of society will, of course, still enjoy, to a certain extent, superior advantages, inasmuch as they usually inherit greater talents, besides receiving the inestimable advantage of the personal training of gifted and highly educated parents. fathers and mothers, it might be expected, would take more care than at present in bringing up their children, knowing that their social rank depended entirely on their ability to make themselves useful to society.
in a state like prussia, where there is now a splendid civil service, the office-holders are often children of office-holding fathers—are, in fact, not rarely descended from families which have held office for generations.[190] the offices are open to universal competition, and are kept in the same families only by the exertions of the children and the self-denial of parents, in expending a large part of their incomes in giving them the best possible advantages. this might be expected to continue to a considerable extent in the ideal socialistic state. no one could, however, leave his children much else than personal talents and abilities well developed, save such articles of enjoyment as have been mentioned—paintings, old family plate, etc. houses, lands, shops, machines, and everything which yields an income, belong to the socialistic state. no[208] one could be left in such a position as to avoid exertion of some kind. all are thought of as workers, but not what we call common laborers. there would be artists, writers, physicians, etc., as now. if any child of even the poorest member of society should give satisfactory evidence of any special aptitude or talent which might be developed so as to become useful to society, provision would be made for his special training after leaving the common-school. every one would have an opportunity to attain the highest development of which he was capable. those who were meant by nature for wood-choppers would not lead an idle life of dissipation, consuming the fruits of other people’s labor.
it is supposed that there would be no financial panics, with their terrible consequences, in the socialistic state. indeed, if the socialistic ideas could be carried out, panics would be impossible. every new invention, every advance, would accrue to the benefit of all. the greater the product, the greater the value of each day’s labor; and each one would receive the full product of his labor, as no capitalist would retain a part. capital exists and increases, but always remains common property. all could live better; since many fold as much would be produced as now. at present the chief difficulty appears to be to avoid over-production. government appoints a committee in prussia to inquire into the cause of the late depression, and they report over-production; in england, committees also investigate and report likewise; in america, business companies and factory owners explain their distress by over-production, and are obliged to enter into mutual agreements to produce less. in the socialistic state over-production is an impossibility.[209] the great waste of competition, furthermore, would cease with the competition itself. two railroads would not be built to perform the service which one could render as well, nor would six dry-goods shops exist in a town where two would be amply sufficient. this saving of capital, labor, energy, and talent would benefit all alike. strikes, then unheard-of save as a reminiscence of the past, would no longer be a considerable element in the cost of production. business failures would cease to impoverish the widow and the orphan.
it is impossible at present to enter into a criticism of social democracy and attempt to separate the true from the false. the comparison, however, which social democrats make between the future organization of society and that of the army is suggestive. it might be that we could afford to put up with what that implies, if we attained thereby all that is hoped; still it is terrible to think of army discipline extending itself over society in all its ramifications. to many—to the majority—the restraint would be a very great evil. then it must be remembered that army discipline is maintained at the cost of no inconsiderable amount of actual, positive suffering. as roscher pointedly remarks, there are thirty offences punishable with death according to the military penal code.
i have thus presented, in their most favorable aspect, the doctrines of social democrats, apart from the agitators who now preach them. the next chapter will afford an opportunity to judge whether or not the social democratic leaders of the present are men of such a character that it would be wise to give them despotic power over one’s life and actions.
social democracy is not now precisely what it was[210] when it lost ferdinand lassalle, its greatest agitator. nevertheless, he is still its father. it is the product of his activity. lassalle did not write history: he created it. he accomplished certain facts which no power can undo. he infused into the minds of german laborers new thoughts, ideas, aspirations. german emigrants become missionaries, and carry with them, as they believe, a gospel of hope and promise, wherever they go. they hold, as lassalle taught them, “that they are the state, that all political power ought to be of and through and for them, that their good and amelioration ought to be the aim of the state, that their affair is the affair of mankind, that their personal interest moves and beats with the pulse of history, with the living principle of moral development.”[191]
thus have new factors, for good or for bad, entered into the life of the world, and with them we must deal.
