others object to any tampering with the sacred words; but in practice all the Reichstag members are Revisionists, and the Congress has just endorsed their policy by the substantial majority of 333 to 142 votes. Dr. Frank, of Mannheim, one of the acutest minds in the party, declared that the old uncompromising negative attitude was obsolete and that reform tactics are really in accordance with their principles, because though they apparently bolster up the capitalist system they actually strengthen the working classes ('Vorwärts,' September 18).

That is the position to-day, and what it signifies is the collapse of the Marxian theory. Bit by bit it has gone, partly by external partly by internal criticism, but actually and effectively through the course of events, until nothing but a ruin remains. Professor Sombart, no hostile observer, puts it more rhetorically thus:

'Here and there a stone was removed from the edifice of the Marxian system; a whole army of moles, hailing from the Socialist as well as from the bourgeois camp, endangered the foundations on which it stood, until at last the whole structure collapsed as silently as the Campanile in Venice.'

The foundations were laid in sand and water, which have slipped away or dried up. The materialistic interpretation of history which underlay the structure has shrunk up, like the philosophic materialism from which it was formed; the labour value theory, which is the heart of the celebrated analysis of capital, has evaporated so completely that it is never so much as mentioned. Thus the philosophic, historical, and economic bases have all been washed away. The dogmatic conclusions drawn from them with arrogant assurance have all been falsified by time. (1) The large industry has not driven out the small. On the contrary, the latter continues to thrive and increase, as the censuses of industry in various countries conclusively prove. New branches are constantly springing up and old ones are reviving through new applications of science and invention. In agriculture, on which Marx and Engels laid particular stress, the small has increased at the expense of the large. In several directions the workman is recovering the ownership of his tools. (2) Capital has not become concentrated in ever fewer hands but has become

more and more diffused, through stocks and shares and houses, in which the thrifty working classes continually extend their ownership. Trade unions themselves are large investors in capitalist enterprises. (3) The working classes have not sunk deeper and deeper into misery and oppression. On the contrary their condition has steadily and substantially improved to a surprising degree. The sweeping and progressive diminution of death rates and pauperism furnishes a proof too massive to be gainsaid, not to mention all the detailed improvements in sanitation, housing, food, clothing, locomotion, recreation, and culture. Bebel himself had to abandon the proposition of increasing misery, so untenable is it. He took refuge in the argument of relative misery, which he could do honestly enough, for he never was a convinced Marxian. To those who are it is a disingenuous quibble. Lassalle, indeed, laid stress on the rising standard of requirements, but Marx formulated the doctrine of progressive absolute misery in the most unequivocal terms, and it is essential to the theory of a catastrophic breakdown of the existing system. The prophecy about the recurrent depressions of trade, or crises. as the Germans call them, has fared no better. They are an important factor in the increasing misery theory, but they have not got worse and worse, as they should have done, nor has the reserve' army waxed greater and greater, as the decline of emigration and growth of immigration conclusively prove. The question of unemployment caused by crises and surplus labour furnishes a cogent illustration of the ameliorative policy the Social-Democrats are forced to adopt. They are now demanding unemployment insurance in order to take the worst sting out of the crises.

What then remains? Nothing but the class war. But of all the Marxian conceptions this has the least relation to actualities. In order to provide his inverted Hegelian formula with an economic content he borrowed two words from France and used them to represent two classes into which all society is divided-the bourgeoisie and the proletariate. The artificiality of this dichotomy is revealed by the terms themselves. One is a French word for which no true equivalent exists in other languages; it indicates a character, not an economic status. The other is a Latin word, perverted from its Latin meaning, for which no one has even attempted

7

to find an equivalent. This means that they do not correspond with any reality in modern life, for all realities have names. The Marxian doctrine postulates a chasm,' growing ever wider, between them; but it is impossible to draw any line of demarcation at all, much less discover a chasm. The lower ranks melt insensibly into the higher and an incessant movement up and down is going on. The Social-Democratic Party, which claims to represent the one class, is itself made up of all. It is supposed to be 'class-conscious,' but how can anyone be class-conscious of a class to which he does not belong? The whole thing is a make-believe stuffed out with phrases. There is a definite line of demarcation between employers and employed, but that is a different angle of cleavage which does not fulfil the requirements of the dogma, and it leaves out large sections of the population.

The tenacity with which the Social-Democrats cling to these out-worn shibboleths is due to the innate need of man for a creed. Having abandoned the Christian religion they must set up a god and a creed of their own; and they found them in Marx and his gospel. They have nothing to replace them now, so the pious worshippers laboriously prop up the top-heavy head of their idol, from which the supporting trunk has crumbled away, and religiously repeat the sacred phrases which have lost their meaning. To a dispassionate observer it is rather a pathetic spectacle.

The present troubles of the party are due to the unreality of their position and the discrepancy between the actualities of life and the obsolete reading of them to which they still cling. Their clients and supporters, stuffed for years with expectations of a tremendous change-expectations which have been enhanced by the recent electoral successes-are becoming impatient at the negative result. The end seems as far off as ever and no sign of realisation is visible. So the party membership has ceased to grow and the unfortunate Reichstag members are hauled over the coals. Some denounce them for not upholding the faith with sufficient vigour and energy, while others call for the general strike since parliamentary action is so futile. The general strike, by the way, is not that of Syndicalism. It is properly 'mass-strike (Massenstreik), and is meant as a peaceful demonstration for political ends. There have been several examples-three

in Belgium, of which the last took place this spring, one in Sweden in 1902, and others elsewhere. It was discussed by the German Socialists at the Congresses of 1905 and 1906, and again the other day at Jena. It is being demanded by the trade unions, and the movement is growing; but the leaders, who have good reason to think it would fail, are opposed to it, and the Congress vetoed the proposal by a large majority. In spite of these cross-currents, those who think the party is going to break up are probably mistaken. Unless the right wing joins the Radicals or the left takes up the massstrike-both unlikely contingencies-it will go on and keep together as a party. It will, however, be more and more engaged in practical measures for the immediate benefit of the poorer classes of the population, while the great economic revolution will sink more and more into the background. For that is the true Naturnotwendigkeit. An economic revolution is as impossible as a political one is easy. The organism is too intricate and delicate for large and sudden changes; it is only susceptible of a very slow and gradual transformation. And that is going on. But it will not take the form anticipated by Socialists. Human affairs, as they change, never do take the form anticipated. That is the only thing certain about the future, and the reason is that anticipations are based on the past and the present, whereas the very changes that bring the future involve a different course with unforeseen turns.

In fine, we may say that the course of Social-Democracy in Germany illustrates the general process of curvature that this movement is undergoing. The more power it gets the more it is compelled by the logic of circumstances to adapt itself to realities and postpone or relinquish its theoretical aims. Only one thing is more futile than promoting Marxian Socialism, and that is opposing it.

HENRY LABOUCHERE

The Life of Henry Labouchere. By ALGAR LABOUCHERE THOROLD. Constable. 1913.

ENRY LABOUCHERE was born in 1831 when William

IV. was king. He died at Florence on the 15th of January 1912; and during his eighty-one years he took a turn at so many occupations and brought so shrewd a wit into their service that, even if there were no additional justification, a history of his life was sure to come, and provided that it was written with the insight and ability which Mr. Thorold has brought to bear upon his work, no less sure to entertain. Paradox was the fairy who waited upon Labouchere's cradle. His parentage was of the most solid and respectable; yet even in his schooldays he was a Bohemian. As a youth he went touring through Mexico with a circus for love of the lady who did the haute école turn. It may be that he appeared in the ring in pink tights with a fillet on his head, as the 'Bounding Buck of Babylon.' Or again it may be that he merely fulfilled the humbler but no less responsible functions of manager of the box-office, receiving the admission fees in oranges and measures of maize as often as in cash. Which duties were Labouchere's is not quite clear. A gentle hint indeed is dropped by the author of this admirable Life that the reader should be wary. 'Brodez, brodez !' cried the lady in Cyrano de Bergerac' to her prosaic lover. It is unlikely that she would have been justified in giving such advice if she had been listening to Mr. Labouchere telling anecdotes of his youth. From the circus he went north into the United States and, falling in with a party of Chippeway Indians at St. Paul, travelled with them into the Far West. Amongst their wigwams he spent six months as the guest of the great chief Hole in Heaven, surely a prophetic conjunction; for it was Labouchere's destiny in after times to make holes in the particular heavens of a good many people. Ten years of life in the diplomatic service followed, ending in 1864 with that famous appointment as second secretary to the legation of Buenos Aires, which I shall be pleased to accept,' he wrote to