MIA > Archive > Wilhelm Liebknecht
Speech Delivered: In English by Wilhelm Liebknecht on June 5th, 1896, as part of a speaking tour.
Source: The Kansas Agitator, August 7th, 1896. Vol. 7, No. 12.
Public Domain: This work is free of any copyright restrictions.
Transcription and Markup: Bill Wright for marxists.org, June 2023.
MIA Editor’s Note: This is a newspaper report of a political lecture delivered in English by Wilhelm Liebknecht
in London, England, as the last stop of an extended speaking tour.
At the recent meeting at the Essex Halstrand, when Wilhelm Liebknecht delivered an address, promised the Fabian Society two years ago, Mr. Sidney Webb presided, and in the name of the Fabian Society cordially welcomed the lecturer.
Comrade Liebknecht said he would never have had the impudence to come over to England to lecture on Socialism. He had come to remove certain misunderstandings which might exist here in regard to the movement in Germany. Proceeding to sketch the rise and progress of the movement in Germany in 1867, Bismarck, he said, was obliged to give what was falsely called universal suffrage, hoping thereby to gain votes for his reactionary policy. Owing to the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lassalle, who had shown the German workers how votes could be made valuable, Bismarck was mistaken. At the first election after the introduction of the suffrage he (Liebknecht) was elected to the Reichstag, but not as a Social Democrat. At that period they had an organization founded by Lassalle, and also the “International,” but both these Socialist organizations had few members, and they could not carry a Socialist into Parliament. The first time they went to the poll as Social Democrats was after the Franco-German war in 1872, for protesting against which he and Bebel were imprisoned for high treason for two years. In the spring of that year they had only one member in the Reichstag and 124,000 votes in all of Germany. In 1878 came the infamous anti-Socialist law, under which their newspapers, printing offices, and organizations were destroyed, and persecutions were made wholesale. More than 1,000 years of prison were meted out altogether. They called that
But they fought and fought, and in that year they had 450,000 votes. In 1890 they had 1,450,000, and Socialism was practically triumphant. Bismarck had an army of one and a half millions, thousands of unscrupulous judges, and unlimited capital, and the Socialists had nothing but the goodness of their cause. It triumphed over his bankrupt political principles (Cheers.) The power of Socialism did not lie in physical force, but in intellectual, moral and social force. Then is Socialism a necessity, against which nothing could or would ever stand. (Cheers.)
After the Socialist Law was repealed they restarted their newspapers. They had now thirty-nine daily Socialist papers. Vorwarts, of which he (Liebknecht) was the chief editor, had millions of readers in Germany. It was not only a splendid weapon against their enemies, it brought more than 50,000 marks clear profit to the party. (Cheers.)
In Germany they had manhood suffrage, but not fixed, as in France, at twenty-one years, but at twenty-five. In their program they asked for the French limit, because at twenty-one they were forced to enter the army as soldiers, and if they were fit to kill and be killed at that age they claimed they were fit to vote. (Laughter and cheers.) He would like to say further that he considered all so-called universal suffrage a lie and a sham which excluded women. (Applause.)
Germany was divided into 397 electoral districts. Since 1867 they had one member for every 100,000 population. Since that time Germany had, like other countries, undergone an industrial revolution, which had driven millions out of the country districts into the towns. Berlin had in the interval increased in population from 600,000 to 1,600,000, so that now they ought to have sixteen members instead of six. (Cheers.) The Social Democratic party had over and over again demanded an increase of seats corresponding with the population, but the Government steadily refused to grant it. He (Liebknecht) was elected at the last election for a division of Berlin which had a population of about half a million by a poll of 47,000 votes. The Socialists had now five out of the sixteen divisions of Berlin. If Berlin had the sixteen members it was entitled to, the Socialists would have fifteen. (Cheers.) At the last election in all Germany they polled nearly 1,800,000 votes, and they were in the right in saying they represented fully one-fourth of the German nation. (Cheers.) If their electoral system was more reasonable they would now have, instead of forty-seven members, at least a hundred. (Cheers.)
would be proportional representation, as in Switzerland. That was the only equal, fair, and just system of representation (Cheers.) It was a
that only members of the party could be selected, and the selected candidate had to adhere to every point of their program. Added to every address to the electors was the full program of the party, so everyone that gave his vote for the Social-Democratic candidate knew what he was voting for. (Cheers.) They were the only party that told the electors what their aim was. (Cheers.) When their candidate was elected they had nothing further to do, [but] print addresses and voting papers, and watch that no trickery was practiced. In Hamburg, for instance, where their enemies spent enormous sums endeavoring to defeat them, an election sometimes cost the party 10,000 marks. In Berlin the cost was 5,000 or 6,000, but in very many places the cost was only a few hundred marks. They had
to deposit, and so could run candidates everywhere. At the last election they contested 390 of the total 397 seats. (Cheers.) At the next they would contest every seat, and he estimated that they would poll from 500,000 to 1,000,000 more votes. (Cheers.)
He had been asked to say something about their relation to other parties. That would be stated in two words. The Social Democratic Party was one for itself. (Laughter and cheers.) Their aim was to abolish capitalistic production. They wanted to abolish private ownership in the means of production, which meant the enslavement of the workers — (cheers) — and put in place of that common property it the ownership of those means. When that was done the workers would cease to be exploited slaves, and not till then. (Cheers.)
The so-called Democrats or Progressives, is well as other parties in Germany, were against that. It sometimes happened that one of those parties would vote with them in the Reichstag on a political question, but whenever it was a question involving a Socialist principle they were all and always against them. (Cheers.) He had been asked to say if they ever made compromises with any other party. If any member of their party ever made a compromise with any other party he would be at once turned out. (Loud cheers.)
They had a second ballot in Germany, and if in the first [ballot] they were defeated they were not so much in the clouds as to refuse to vote for the candidate of another party on every occasion. If, for instance, there was a question like that of the proposed new military law at the last election, when the Government were asking for more soldiers, they would and did vote for the candidate who promised to vote against it. But that was not compromise. (Cheers.) At the principal election, where they could have one of their own candidates, they went wholly and solely for principle. At a second ballot election, where they could not have a candidate of their own, they acted practically. (Cheers.) He would never make a compromise with any party if he were in the position they in England were. (Cheers.) In Germany they had been offered candidatures by Progressives, but they had never accepted them. (Cheers.) How could they make an alliance with a party which perhaps the next day they would have to fight? That would be demoralization in the extreme. (Cheers.)
He had been asked to state what they understood by State Socialism. They did not mean “Bismarckism,” i.e., nationalization of some branches of industry, such as railways, undertaken not to ameliorate the condition of the workers but for the sake of the aggrandizement and power of the State. This was advocated in Germany by the agrarians, who would like to have all the trade in corn, etc. But that was not Socialism. It was State Capitalism. (Cheers.) In their new [Erfurt] program it was proposed to say, “We are against private Capitalism.” but they had to tell the people they were against Capitalism, whether state or private. (Cheers.) Supposing a despotic state like Germany had all the means of production it would mean the scourge of the policeman added to the whip of the Capitalist. (Cheers.)
So, also, what was called “Municipalization” had nothing to do with Socialism. Before all, Socialism meant the abolition of the wage system. (Cheers.) Municipalization meant the perpetuation of the wage system. (Cheers.) He would not decry what was called Municipal Socialism, he only wished to make it clear that it had nothing to do with real Socialism. Municipalities could do great good. In France there were municipalities where Socialists were the masters, but they could not carry on real Socialism on a small scale — not even on a National scale. England nationally could not do it. It could only come and be practiced internationally. (Cheers.)
Municipal Socialism might pay high wages, but wages were a part of the Capitalistic system. It could provide good streets and good schools — splendid things in themselves, no doubt, but that was not Socialism, any more than Messrs. Spiers & Ponds’ great establishments, which he had been looking at.[a] That firm would no doubt be astonished if they were told they were Socialists, yet they carried on a great many things — some doubtless desirable improvements and advantages of various kinds, which could not be done by a small Capitalist — but it had nothing to do with Socialism on that account. (Cheers and laughter.)
There could also be no “Christian” Socialism. He remembered [Charles] Kingsley when he was in England forty years ago. His book, “Alton Locke,” was a wonderful work. He (Liebknecht) had had it translated into German. But what use had Kingsley’s Christian Socialist movement been? Had England been better for it? Had the Church been set to work for the poor? (Cheers.) In Germany they had several prominent men in the Christian Church calling themselves Christian Socialists. They had [Adolf] Stoecker, the highest Christian clergyman in Germany — also a liar. At the bidding of Bismarck he had organized the anti-Semitic movement. There were other and better men also, but that movement was nothing. A clergyman is supposed to fear God only. But when the German Emperor said, “Christian Socialism is nonsense,” the great pastor responded: “I thought Christian Socialism was a good thing, but it would be a great sin to go against the Government. The Emperor has spoken: I give it up.” (Laughter.) That was Christian Socialism in Germany. There could be only one Socialism, i.e., the science and movement which had for its aim the change in society involved in placing the whole means of production in the possession of the whole people. (Cheers.)
Marx was right when he said the struggle must be a class struggle. The workers must organize against the Capitalistic class. Many members of that class were philanthropically disposed; and many of them were in the Socialist movement, but these were and always must be exceptions. The majority of the middle class would never become Socialists, and there was nothing but real Socialism for the world of workers. (Cheers.) [Henry Thomas] Buckle in England had proved long ago that philanthropy could never reform the world, and he would like to tell the friends of peace that they would never abolish war so long as Capitalism lasted. Militarism could not be destroyed in a capitalistic society, because such a society necessitated militarism, with all its horrors of war and continual unrest. (Cheers.) Therein would come the significance of the great demonstration in favor of peace which would inaugurate the forthcoming International Congress in London. There would be present delegates representing not a few hundred well-meaning people, but millions of workers in all countries. He hoped the demonstration would be worthy of its grand aim of international peace. (Loud cheers.)
The chairman announced that no questions could be allowed, but the executive had arranged for short speeches by himself (Sidney Webb), G. Bernard Shaw and J.R. Macdonald. After these had spoken Liebknecht briefly replied, and the proceedings terminated.
[a] Spiers and Pond Limited was the name of a large-scale catering enterprise that operated standardized restaurants in hotels and railway stations across Britain. It can be considered a nineteenth-century precursor of the fast food franchises of today. By 1891 the firm operated hundreds of restaurants staffed by more than 6,000 workers, some of whom undoubtedly served Liebknecht over the course of his three week speaking tour.
Last updated on 30 August 2023