I come now to the democratic section.

  "The free basis of the state."

 First of all, according to II, the German Workers' party strives for "the free state".

 Free state ? what is this?

 A 「国家の自由な基礎」

 まず、第二章によれば、ドイツ労働者党は、「自由な国家」を目指して闘う。自由な国家 ? それは何か ?
 It is by no means the aim of the workers, who have got rid of the narrow mentality of humble subjects, to set the state free.

 In the German Empire, the "state" is almost as "free" as in Russia.

 Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".



 The German Workers' party ?  at least if it adopts the program ?  shows that its socialist ideas are not even skin-deep;

 in that, instead of treating existing society (and this holds good for any future one) as the basis of the existing state (or of the future state in the case of future society), it treats the state rather as an independent entity that possesses its own intellectual, ethical, and libertarian bases.



 And what of the riotous misuse which the program makes of the words "present-day state", "present-day society", and of the still more riotous misconception it creates in regard to the state to which it addresses its demands?

 "Present-day society" is capitalist society, which exists in all civilized countries, more or less free from medieval admixture, more or less modified by the particular historical development of each country, more or less developed.
 On the other hand, the "present-day state" changes with a country's frontier.

 It is different in the Prusso-German Empire from what it is in Switzerland, and different in England from what it is in the United States.

 The "present-day state" is therefore a fiction.




 Nevertheless, the different states of the different civilized countries, in spite or their motley diversity of form, all have this in common: that they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed.

 They have, therefore, also certain essential characteristics in common.

 In this sense, it is possible to speak of the "present-day state" in contrast with the future, in which its present root, bourgeois society, will have died off.



 The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? 

  In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions?

 This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.




 Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other.

 Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.



 Now the program does not deal with this nor with the future state of communist society.

 Its political demands contain nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people's militia, etc.

 They are a mere echo of the bourgeois People's party, of the League of Peace and Freedom.


 They are all demands which, insofar as they are not exaggerated in fantastic presentation, have already been realized.

 Only the state to which they belong does not lie within the borders of the German Empire, but in Switzerland, the United States, etc.

 This sort of "state of the future" is a present-day state, although existing outside the "framework" of the German Empire.



 But one thing has been forgotten.

 Since the German Workers' party expressly declares that it acts within "the present-day national state", hence within its own state, the Prusso-German Empire ? its demands would indeed be otherwise largely meaningless, since one only demands what one has not got ?

 it should not have forgotten the chief thing, namely, that all those pretty little gewgaws rest on the recognition of the so-called sovereignty of the people and hence are appropriate only in a democratic republic.


 Since one has not the courage ? and wisely so, for the circumstances demand caution ? to demand the democratic republic, as the French workers' programs under Louis Philippe and under Louis Napoleon did,

 one should not have resorted, either, to the subterfuge, neither "honest" [1] nor decent, of demanding things which have meaning only in a democratic republic from a state which is nothing but a police-guarded military despotism, embellished with parliamentary forms, alloyed with a feudal admixture, already influenced by the bourgeoisie, and bureaucratically carpentered, and then to assure this state into the bargain that one imagines one will be able to force such things upon it "by legal means".
 人は、勇気を持っていないのではなかろうか ? それは賢くも、状況が慎重さを求めているからであろうか ? ルイ・ナポレオン時代のフランスの労働者の諸綱領がしたように、民主共和制を要望する勇気を持っていない。


 Even vulgar democracy, which sees the millennium in the democratic republic, and has no suspicion that it is precisely in this last form of state of bourgeois society that the class struggle has to be fought out to a conclusion ?

  even it towers mountains above this kind of democratism, which keeps within the limits of what is permitted by the police and not permitted by logic.


 That, in fact, by the word "state" is meant the government machine, or the state insofar as it forms a special organism separated from society through division of labor, is shown by the words "the German Workers' party demands as the economic basis of the state: a single progressive income tax", etc.
 Taxes are the economic basis of the government machinery and of nothing else.

 In the state of the future, existing in Switzerland, this demand has been pretty well fulfilled.

 Income tax presupposes various sources of income of the various social classes, and hence capitalist society.

 It is, therefore, nothing remarkable that the Liverpool financial reformers ? bourgeois headed by Gladstone's brother ? are putting forward the same demand as the program.




  "The German Workers' party demands as the intellectual and ethical basis of the state:
 "1. Universal and equal elementary education by the state. Universal compulsory school attendance. Free instruction."

 "Equal elementary education"?  What idea lies behind these words?

 Is it believed that in present-day society (and it is only with this one has to deal) education can be equal for all classes?

 Or is it demanded that the upper classes also shall be compulsorily reduced to the modicum of education ? the elementary school ? that alone is compatible with the economic conditions not only of the wage-workers but of the peasants as well?
 「平等の国民教育」? これらの言葉の奥にはどういう考えが横たわっているのか? 


 "Universal compulsory school attendance. Free instruction." The former exists even in Germany, the second in Switzerland and in the United States in the case of elementary schools.

 If in some states of the latter country higher education institutions are also "free", that only means in fact defraying the cost of education of the upper classes from the general tax receipts.
 「一般的就学義務。無料教育」。 第一のものはドイツにすら存在し、第二のものは小学校についてスイスや合衆国に存在する。


 Incidentally, the same holds good for "free administration of justice" demanded under A, 5.

 The administration of criminal justice is to be had free everywhere; that of civil justice is concerned almost exclusively with conflicts over property and hence affects almost exclusively the possessing classes.

 Are they to carry on their litigation at the expense of the national coffers?



 This paragraph on the schools should at least have demanded technical schools (theoretical and practical) in combination with the elementary school.
 "Elementary education by the state" is altogether objectionable.

 Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and, as is done in the United States, supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people!

 Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school.


 Particularly, indeed, in the Prusso-German Empire (and one should not take refuge in the rotten subterfuge that one is speaking of a "state of the future"; we have seen how matters stand in this respect) the state has need, on the contrary, of a very stern education by the people.
 But the whole program, for all its democratic clang, is tainted through and through by the Lassallean sect's servile belief in the state, or, what is no better, by a democratic belief in miracles; or rather it is a compromise between these two kinds of belief in miracles, both equally remote from socialism.

 "Freedom of science" says paragraph of the Prussian Constitution. Why, then, here?

 "Freedom of conscience"! If one desired, at this time of the Kulturkampf to remind liberalism of its old catchwords, it surely could have been done only in the following form:

 Everyone should be able to attend his religious as well as his bodily needs without the police sticking their noses in.

 But the Workers' party ought, at any rate in this connection, to have expressed its awareness of the fact that bourgeois "freedom of conscience" is nothing but the toleration of all possible kinds of religious freedom of conscience from the witchery of religion.

 But one chooses not to transgress the "bourgeois" level.
 「信教の自由」 もし今の文化闘争の時代に、自由主義にその古い標語を肝に銘じさせようとしたのであるなら、それはやはり、次のような形でだけ為されえたのである。



 I have now come to the end, for the appendix that now follows in the program does not constitute a characteristic component part of it. Hence, I can be very brief.


 "2. Normal working day."

 In no other country has the workers' party limited itself to such an indefinite demand, but has always fixed the length of the working day that it considers normal under the given circumstances.


 "3. Restriction of female labor and prohibition of child labor."

 The standardization of the working day must include the restriction of female labor, insofar as it relates to the duration, intermissions, etc., of the working day; otherwise, it could only mean the exclusion of female labor from branches of industry that are especially unhealthy for the female body, or are objectionable morally for the female sex.

  If that is what was meant, it should have been said so.




 "Prohibition of child labor." Here it was absolutely essential to state the age limit.

 A general prohibition of child labor is incompatible with the existence of large-scale industry and hence an empty, pious wish. Its realization -- if it were possible -- would be reactionary, since, with a strict regulation of the working time according to the different age groups and other safety measures for the protection of children, an early combination of productive labor with education is one of the most potent means for the transformation of present-day society.



 "4. State supervision of factory, workshop, and domestic industry."

In consideration of the Prusso-German state, it should definitely have been demanded that the inspectors are to be removable only by a court of law; that any worker can have them prosecuted for neglect of duty; that they must belong to the medical profession.



 "5. Regulation of prison labor."

 A petty demand in a general workers' program. In any case, it should have been clearly stated that there is no intention from fear of competition to allow ordinary criminals to be treated like beasts, and especially that there is no desire to deprive them of their sole means of betterment, productive labor.

 This was surely the least one might have expected from socialists.




 "6. An effective liability law."

 It should have been stated what is meant by an "effective" liability law.

 Be it noted, incidentally, that, in speaking of the normal working day, the part of factory legislation that deals with health regulations and safety measures, etc., has been overlooked. The liability law comes into operation only when these regulations are infringed.



 In short, this appendix also is distinguished by slovenly editing.

 Dixi et salvavi animam meam.[I have spoken and saved my soul.]