FERDINAND LASSALLE.
The most interesting figure in the history of social democracy is
incontestably Ferdinand Lassalle. In some respects he resembled Marx.
He also was of Hebrew descent, and belonged to the higher classes of
society. Both were interested in the welfare of the lower classes, and
made sacrifices willingly in behalf of their cause. Both intended to
become university professors, and there is not the shadow of a reason
to doubt that both might have succeeded as such. Lassalle, the son of
a wealthy wholesale merchant of Breslau, was born in 1825. His father
wished him to devote himself to business, but Lassalle was too fond
of his studies to consent. He went to the universities of Breslau and
Berlin, where he devoted himself to philology and philosophy. His career
as a student was brilliant in the extreme. The most distinguished men of
the time were carried away with admiration. Wilhelm von Humboldt called
him “Das Wunderkind”—“The Miraculous Child.” His first literary work was
an exposition of the “Philosophy of Heraclitus the Obscure.”[181] “Before
this book,” to use the words of another, “Humboldt and the whole world
bent the knee.” Lassalle’s second important work was one on a system
of jurisprudence entitled, “The System of Acquired Rights”—“Das System
der erworbenen Rechte” (2 Bde.). The great jurist Savigny called it the
ablest legal book which had been written since the sixteenth century. It
was published in 1861. Before this, Lassalle had become interested in the
case of the Countess von Hatzfeldt, the misused wife of a wealthy but
brutal man. While he was indulging in the most extravagant dissipation,
she was obliged to live in cramped circumstances. The Countess had begun
a suit against her husband for separation and alimony, but did not make
much headway until Lassalle took charge of the case, in 1846. After an
eight years’ contest, he secured a brilliant triumph. The Countess,
although over forty, was still beautiful, and Lassalle, in taking up
her case, appears to have been actuated by the same motives as the
knights-errant of an earlier period who went about redressing wrong and
protecting the weak. The entire affair is illustrative of his fiery,
romantic temperament.
It was in 1862 that Lassalle began his agitation in behalf of the
laboring classes, an agitation which resulted in the formation of the
German Social Democratic Party. Previous to his time, German laborers
had been considered contented and peaceable. It had been thought that
a working-men’s party might be established in France or England, but
that it was hopeless to attempt to move the phlegmatic German laborers.
Lassalle’s historical importance lies in the fact that he was able to
work upon the laborers so powerfully as to arouse them to action. It is
due to Lassalle above all others that German working-men’s battalions,
to use the social democratic expression, now form the vanguard in the
struggle for the emancipation of labor.
Lassalle’s writings did not advance materially the theory of social
democracy. He drew from Rodbertus and Marx in his economic writings, but
he clothed their thoughts in such manner as to enable ordinary laborers
to understand them, and this they never could have done without such
help. Even for an educated man their works are not easy reading; for
the uneducated they are quite incomprehensible. Lassalle’s speeches and
pamphlets were eloquent sermons on texts taken from Marx. Lassalle gave
to Ricardo’s law of wages the designation, the iron law of wages, and
expounded to the laborers its full significance, showing them how it
inevitably forced wages down to a level just sufficient to enable them to
live. He acknowledged that it was the key-stone of his system, and that
his doctrines stood or fell with it.
Laborers were told that this law could be overthrown only by the
abolition of the wages system. How Lassalle really thought this was to
be accomplished is not so evident. He proposed to the laborers that
government should aid them by the use of its credit to the extent of
100,000,000 of thalers, to establish co-operative associations for
production; and a great deal of breath has been wasted to show the
inadequacy of his proposed measures. Lassalle could not himself have
supposed that so insignificant a matter as the granting of a small loan
would solve the labor question. He recognized, however, that it was
necessary to have some definite party programme to insure success in
agitation, and could think of no better plan at the time than to work
for universal suffrage and a government subsidy. He wrote to his friend
Rodbertus to the effect that he was willing to drop the latter plank in
his platform, if something better could be suggested.[182] It would be
going too far to say that he was positively insincere, for he might have
thought that if government had voted the proposed credit of one hundred
millions, it would have opened the way for other reforms. He might have
regarded this modest proposal merely as an entering wedge.
Lassalle took this project of productive co-operative associations
founded on government loans from Louis Blanc, with whose work he was well
acquainted; indeed, as he began his agitation, he wrote to the French
socialist, and requested some kind of an open letter of recognition which
should give him credit with the laborers.[183] We may get some clew to
thoughts possibly lingering in the background, which Lassalle might have
intended to express later by recalling the proposals of the Frenchman.
Louis Blanc, as will be remembered, wished government to use its power
of taxation to assist the social workshops with large advances of money,
for which no interest was to be charged. No one was to be forced to join
these _ateliers sociaux_. According to this scheme private manufacturers
are allowed to continue their business as long as they choose. However,
as no interest is paid for the government loans to the co-operative
undertakings, the public establishments will be in a position to
undersell private employers of labor and thus compel them to fall in
line. The only possible termination is the socialistic state. As Lassalle
was thoroughly informed concerning Blanc’s ideas, it is quite possible
that in the course of time he may have intended to go equally far. The
way he presented the matter to the laborers was somewhat as follows:
There exists at present a conflict between labor and capital, which must
be abolished. This contradiction between the elements of production can
only be terminated by their union in co-operative associations, in which
no capitalist comes between the working-man and the fruits of his toil,
to levy toll thereon. But at the present time only large establishments
can succeed, as the increased division of labor makes it necessary to
employ a large force of men, and mechanical inventions have forced
producers to use many and expensive machines. The laborers have not the
means to found large manufactories; consequently government must advance
these means in order to cause the existing and unhappy social conflict to
cease. Government is to advance capital to different groups of laborers,
who conduct various enterprises. These groups are associated, new ones
are continually added, and, finally, their united power is so great that
they can stand alone without government aid.
This all appears harmless enough, and no government would be justified in
refusing 100,000,000 of thalers, or $75,000,000, if so much good could
be done by it. But one of the ablest men of his time must have been
fully conscious of the utter insufficiency of such a sum. If he had any
other idea in his mind than simply to use his demand of government as a
rallying-point for purposes of agitation, it cannot well be doubted that
he had further petitions to address to government as soon as they had
granted his first one. It is not at all improbable he might have been
willing to see collateral inheritances abolished, and the income derived
therefrom devoted to co-operative undertakings. Proposals, like abolition
of interest on loans, must have followed, with the view of rendering
private competition impossible. Thus would be introduced the socialistic
state longed for by the social democratic party founded by Lassalle.
“On the 23d of May, 1863, German social democracy was born. Little
importance was attached to the event at the time. A few men met at
Leipsic, and, under the leadership of Ferdinand Lassalle, formed a
new political party called the ‘Universal German Laborers’ Union’
(‘Der Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiterverein’). That was all. Surely,
no one could be expected to ascribe great weight to the fact that a
handful of working-men, led by a dreamer, had met and passed a few
resolutions—resolutions, too, as modest in their expression of purpose
as they were harmless in appearance. It was simply declared that the
laborers ought to be represented in the different German parliaments,
as only thus could their interests be adequately cared for and the
opposition between the various classes of society terminated; and in view
of this fact it was resolved that the members of the Union should avail
themselves of all peaceful and legal means in endeavoring to bring about
universal suffrage.
“But it was soon discovered that the members of the Union, the first
organization in Germany of social democracy, desired political power only
as a means of overthrowing entirely the existing order of the production
and distribution of wealth.”[184]
Lassalle never tired of representing in vivid colors the injustice of our
present social institutions. The crimes, selfishness, and heartlessness
of the _bourgeoisie_ were unfailing topics in his agitation. The laborers
were told that they had no right to be contented with their lot. It is
this damnable, easily satisfied disposition of you German laborers which
is your ruin, they were told.[185]
“The German laborer was finally moved. His anger and discontent became
permanent and terrible in proportion as it had been difficult to arouse
him. He was not to be easily pacified. He soon showed strength and
determination in such manner as to attract the attention of the civilized
world. Statesmen grew pale and kings trembled.”[186]
Lassalle did not live to see the fruits of his labors. He met with some
success and celebrated a few triumphs, but the Union did not flourish
as he hoped. At the time of his death he did not appear to have a
firm, lasting hold on the laboring population. There then existed no
social-democratic party with political power. Although Lassalle lost
his life in a duel, which had its origin in a love affair, and not in
any struggle for the rights of labor, he was canonized at once by the
working-men, and took his place among the greatest martyrs and heroes
of all times. His influence increased more than tenfold as soon as he
ceased to live. This was not entirely undeserved. Men remembered and
appreciated better his extraordinary talents and his ardent, romantic
temperament. Even Bismarck, with whom he had been personally acquainted,
took occasion once, in the Reichstag, to express his admiration for
Lassalle. I was in Germany at the time, and remember well what a
sensation his words created. He expressed himself as follows:[187] “I
met Lassalle three or four times. Our relations were not of a political
nature. Politically he had nothing which he could offer me. He attracted
me extraordinarily as a private man. Lassalle was one of the most gifted
and amiable men with whom I have ever associated—a man who was ambitious
on a grand scale, but not the least of a republican. He had a very marked
inclination towards a national monarchy; the idea towards the attainment
of which his efforts were directed was the German Empire, and in this we
found a point of contact. Lassalle was ambitious on a grand scale, and
whether the German Empire should close with the house of Hohenzollern
or the house of Lassalle, that was perhaps doubtful; but his sympathies
were through and through monarchical.... Lassalle was an energetic and
exceedingly clever man, and it was always instructive to talk with him.
Our conversations have lasted for hours, and I have always regretted
their close.... It would have given me great pleasure to have had a
similarly gifted man for a neighbor in my country home.”
It has, indeed, been stated that Lassalle, at the time of his death, had
some thoughts of making terms with the Prussian government. He was to
come out as a supporter of Bismarck, and to receive a high appointment in
return. I am unable to say how much truth there may be in this report.
It is possible he may have begun to lose faith in social democracy;
still it must be confessed that he was not a man to be easily diverted
from a purpose which he had once formed. This is abundantly shown by his
indomitable perseverance in the case of the Countess von Hatzfeldt. It
is nevertheless significant that the second edition of his “System of
Acquired Rights,” which appeared in 1881, was edited by Lothar Bucher,
who bears the title of privy-councillor and holds a high position under
the government in Berlin.
There are three doctrines upon which the social democratic leaders lay
especial stress in their attacks on the economic institutions of to-day.
The first is “Das eherne Lohngesetz”—“The Iron Law of Wages”—or “Cruel
Iron Law of Wages,” as it is also called. It is with this law that the
name of Lassalle is especially connected.
The second doctrine teaches the systematic robbery of laborers by
capitalists. They rob them by taking from them all the surplus value
which they produce, over and above the means necessary to sustain
life. This is Marx’s doctrine of the appropriation of surplus value
(_Mehrwerth_) by employers.
The third doctrine is Marx’s theory of industrial crises and panics.
What is “The Iron Law of Wages”? It is, as already stated, only
Lassalle’s statement and interpretation of Ricardo’s “Law of Wages.”
Ricardo expresses his law in these words: “The natural price of labor is
that price which is necessary to enable the laborers, one with another,
to subsist and to perpetuate their race, without either increase or
diminution.” Ricardo has previously explained what is to be understood
by market price and what by natural price. Market price is the price
actually obtained for an article; the natural price is that which pays
labor and the profits of capital. Through miscalculation, too much or too
little of a commodity is at times offered on the market, and it departs
from its natural price. If too little is offered, profits will be too
high, and capital will rush to the production of the commodity in order
to gain the unusual profits, until competition forces them down to the
usual rate, or, very likely, below it, when capital will be withdrawn
from the production of said commodity. So the market price fluctuates
about the natural price with a continual tendency to return to it. Now,
labor is a commodity, and may be increased or diminished in quantity like
other commodities. In an advancing state of society the market price
will be above the natural price, and may continue so for a long time;
but early and frequent marriages and large families will produce all
the labor required, and reduce it to its natural price eventually. In a
declining state of society, on the other hand, labor would sink below
its natural price, and the supply would diminish on account of frequent
deaths, few marriages, and small families.
This law of wages may be difficult for those to comprehend who are not
thoroughly familiar with economic discussions. In order to make it
clearer, I will quote, with a few changes and abbreviations, a passage
of some length from John Stuart Mill,[188] giving a lucid explanation
of the law. “Mr. Ricardo assumes,” says Mill, “that there is everywhere
a minimum rate of wages—either the lowest with which it is physically
possible to keep up the population, or the lowest with which the people
will choose to do. To this minimum he assumes that the general rate of
wages always tends; that they can never be lower beyond the length of
time required for a diminished rate of increase to make itself felt, and
can never long continue higher. This assumption contains sufficient truth
to render it admissible for the purposes of abstract science.... But in
the application to practice it is necessary to consider that the minimum
of which he speaks, especially when it is not a physical, but what may be
termed a moral minimum, is itself liable to vary.” A rise of the price of
food will permanently lower the standard of living of laborers, “in case
their previous habits in respect of population prove stronger than their
previous habits in respect of comfort. In that case the injury done to
them will be permanent, and their deteriorated condition will become a
new minimum, tending to perpetuate itself as the more ample minimum did
before.” It is to be feared that this is the way in which a rise in the
price of provisions usually operates. “There is considerable evidence
that the circumstances of the agricultural laborers in England have more
than once in our history sustained great permanent deterioration from
causes which operated by diminishing the demand for labor, and which,
if population had exercised its power of self-adjustment, in obedience
to the previous standard of comfort, could only have had a temporary
effect; but, unhappily, the poverty in which the class was plunged during
a long series of years brought that previous standard into disuse, and
the next generation, growing up without having possessed those pristine
comforts, multiplied in turn without any attempt to retrieve them.” ...
The salutary effect of a fall in the price of food is of no permanent
value “if laborers content themselves with enjoying the greater comfort
while it lasts, but do not learn to require it.... If from poverty their
children had previously been insufficiently fed or improperly nursed, a
greater number will now be reared, and the competition of these, when
they grow up, will depress wages probably in full proportion to the
greater cheapness of food. If the effect is not produced in this mode,
it will be produced by earlier and more numerous marriages, or by an
increased number of births to a marriage.” I believe Mill renders the
law as plain as it can be made, without entering into subjects foreign
to this work. The standpoint is this: labor is a commodity, like wheat
or potatoes, which is increased or decreased according to the existing
demand. The laborers live not for themselves, but solely for the higher
classes, in particular, for the capitalists. This is the way Lassalle
expresses it to the laborers of Frankfort in an eloquent speech, which
has not yet ceased to be a power in Germany: “What is the consequence of
that law, which, as I have proved to you, is accepted by all political
economists? What is the consequence of the same? I ask. You believe,
perhaps, laborers and fellow-citizens, that you are human beings—that
you are men. Speaking from the standpoint of political economy, you make
a terrible mistake. Speaking from the standpoint of political economy,
you are nothing but a commodity, a high price for which increases
your numbers, just the same as a high price for stockings increases
the number of stockings, if there are not enough of them; and you are
swept away, your number is diminished by smaller wages—by what Malthus
calls the preventive and positive checks to population; your number is
diminished, just as if you were vermin against which society wages war.”
Lassalle then shows them how much shorter the average of life is among
the laboring classes than among the wealthy. He demonstrates to them that
poor and insufficient food means starvation. “There are, gentlemen,” says
he, “two ways of dying of starvation. It, indeed, happens seldom that a
man falls down dead in a moment from hunger; but when a man is subjected
to a greater expenditure of power than he is able to replace, on account
of poor food or a miserable mode of life—when he gives out more physical
energy than he takes in—then, I say, he dies of slow starvation.”
Rehearse this in a thousand different ways and with all the resources of
oratorical art, to laborers really ill-fed, ill-housed, and ill-clothed,
and you shall indeed find yourself soon standing upon a volcano, whose
forces are no longer latent and slumbering.
In his definition of capital Lassalle clothes the same thought contained
in his “Iron Law of Wages” in other words. The definition reads as
follows: “Capital exists where a division of labor obtains and where
production consists in the creation of values in exchange, and in such
a system of production it is the advance of labor already performed
(congealed, coagulated labor), which is necessary to sustain the life of
the producer. This advance of coagulated labor brings it to pass that the
excess of labor’s product over and above what is necessary to support
the life of the producer accrues to the person or persons who made the
advance.”
The more one reflects upon this definition, the more meaning is
discovered in it. It has furnished the text for many a social-democratic
sermon. Like Marx, Lassalle holds that capital is based on a theft—on
that theft, namely, “which deprived the masses of their right in the
soil, in the earth—the common heritage of all.”
It is substantially the same doctrine which we have met with so
often—viz., that labor alone is the source of wealth, and if capitalist
and landlord could be swept out of existence the entire social product
would go to the laborer. It resulted from a one-sided development of
certain teachings of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” “The produce of
labor,” says Adam Smith, in one place—and, as will be seen, he means the
entire product—“constitutes the natural recompense or wages of labor.
“In that original state of things which precedes both the appropriation
of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of labor belongs
to the laborer. He has neither landlord nor master to share with him.
“Had this state continued, the wages of labor would have augmented with
all those improvements in its productive powers to which the division of
labor gives occasion. All things would gradually have become cheaper.
They would have been produced by a smaller quantity of labor; and as the
commodities produced by equal quantities of labor would naturally, in
this state of things, be exchanged for one another, they would have been
purchased likewise with the produce of a smaller quantity.”[189]
Repeat this to the man toiling and moiling for a bare subsistence, while
he crouches before the employing capitalist surfeited in luxury; or
to the poor tenant farmer, whose half-starved family can hardly find
the wherewithal to cover their nakedness, while his absentee landlord
indulges in the extravagant pleasures of a gay capital—and do you imagine
that from it he will be slow to draw a very natural conclusion, and one
fraught with tremendous practical consequences? If that originally and
naturally belonged to him which another now enjoys, will he not long
to return to the state of nature? As he reflects upon his wrongs and
sufferings, will he not be filled with hatred towards that one who, as
he thinks, unjustly and cruelly keeps him from the fruits of his labor?
And as time goes on, and the hardships he endures sink more and more
deeply into his mind, will he not finally, in desperation, resolve to put
down his oppressor, be he landlord or be he capitalist, and to reverse,
by the force of a strong right arm, an unnatural and artificial social
organization?
In that thought and in that determination originated social democracy.