To which we reply that the very example B. Krichevsky quotes, illustrates how even those who regard history, literally from the Ilovaisky[1] point-of-view sometimes describe themselves as Marxists. Of course, there is no need whatever, in explaining the unity of the German Socialist Party and the dismembered state of the French Socialist Party, to search for the special features in the history of the respective countries, to compare the conditions of military semi-absolutism in the one country with republican parliamentarism in the other, or to analyse the effects of the Paris Commune and the effects of the anti-Socialist laws in Germany; to compare the economic life and economic development of the two countries, or recall that "the unexampled growth of German Social-Democracy" was accomplished by a strenuous struggle unexampled in the history of Socialism, not only against the theoreticians (Muehlberger, Duehring),[2] the Socialists of the Chair, but also against mistaken tactics (Lassalle), etc., etc. All that is superfluous! The French quarrel among themselves because they are intolerant; the Germans are united because they are good fellows.
And observe, this piece of matchless profundity is intended to "refute" the fact which is a complete answer to the defence of Bernsteinism. The question as to whether the Bernsteinists stand on the basis of the class struggle of the proletariat can be completely and irrevocably answered only by historical experience. Consequently, the example of France is the most important one in this respect, because France is the only country in which the Bernsteinists attempted to stand independently on their own feet with the warm approval of their German colleagues (and partly also of the
- ↑ Ilovaisky—the writer of official school text books on history noted for his reactionary treatment of Russian history.—Ed.
- ↑ At the time Engels hurled his attack against Duehring, many representatives of German Social-Democracy inclined towards the latter's views, and accusations of acerbity, intolerance, uncomradely polemics, etc., were publicly hurled at Engels at the party congress. At the congress of 1877, Johann Most, supported by his comrades, moved a redolution to prohibit the publication of Engels' articles in the Vorwaerts because "they did not represent the interests of the overwhelming majority of the readers," and Vahlteich declared that the publication of these articles had caused great damage to the party, that Duehring had also rendered services to Social-Democracy: "We must utilise the services of all those who offer them in the interest of the party; let the professors engage in polemics if they care to do so, but the Vorwaerts is not the place to conduct them in" [Vorwaerts, No. 65, June 6, 1877]. Here we have another example of the defence of "freedom of criticism," and it would do our legal critics and illegal opportunists who love so much to quote examples from the Germans, a deal of good to ponder over it!
17
