The Erfurt Program and Eduard Bernstein

I find this particular time in German social democratic history when the Erfurt Program and the "revisionist" views of Bernstein intersect very interesting. As Carl Schorske points out, "Social Democracy was expanding not in an atmosphere of increasing misery and unemployment, but in 1 of unpredented prosperity." The Erfurt program in 1891 did pull together revolutionaries and reformers, but it was ultimately committed to revolution. Then along comes Bernstein, with his "revision of Marxist theory," which in essence argued the revolution that the revolutionaries unceasingly called for was unneccessary. This optimistic outlook envisioned a situation where the capitalist system and the ideals of socialism could come together in a nonviolent way, sort of like the Lassallean view (legal rather than radical change) that could positively be accomplished. Bernstein thus caused two consequences; 1) he helped cause a schism to surface within the ranks of the party. Reformers, for the first time, had ammo and a reasoned argument as to why legal means, rather than violent revolution, were a better manner in which to proceed as a party in the Reichstag. 2) Bernstein and his ideas really put the Erfurt Program to the test; as a party, what do we stand for? Can socialism and capitalism really coexist? "Thus Bernstein's revisionism provided an alternative base for the reformism enshrined in the Erfurt Program." No doubt it certainly would have been an very interesting indeed to be a socialist in germany near the turn of the 20th century.

The German Generational Dilemma of Spilled Milk

I have this "gut feeling" that history seems to repeat itself; each generation must re-learn the same material and overcome the same obstacles as the previous generation had done. In another class I read this book by Ivan Turgenev called "Fathers and Sons," which dealt with the concept of a cycle of ideas/governing that each generation must learn. I see this cycle of the same problems and poor solutions with the Prussian gov't leading up to 1848 and with Bismarck and his newly created German gov't in 1871. In the 1840s, as we have discussed in class, the Prussian gov't, with the numerous problems the State faced (taxation, wood theft, guilds, too much gov't intervention, exc), and it's overreaction to fix the issues led to the creation of more problems within society than eventually led to a "Revolution" of sorts in 1848. The Government, in the attempt to correct precieved problems, (i.e spilled milk) thus spilled more milk on the floor and had an even bigger problem on its hands than b4. This idea can also be seen with the Bismarck ran German gov't in the 1870s and 1880s. There were problems with social classes, (the bourgeoisie and the working class) religious divisions, and the economy, in addition to foreign affairs. Arguably the only 1 that Bismarck was able to fix was the issue of foreign policy, which worked in keeping France isolated until the outbreak of WW1. In trying to fix these problems in Germany, Bismarck, like the previous generation, created even more problems. 1) In developing the idea of "Reichsfeinde" (enemies of the State), Bismarck created a voting bloc of roughly 25% that would always vote against him, in essence giving political power to his emenies, the Center Party.
2) While trying to bring the Liberals to his corner with "Kulturkampf," Bismarck alienates the "evil Catholics," and the "evil socialists" with the Anti-Socialist Law (1878) thus driving both groups and their economic earning power underground, and at the same time making both groups increasingly radical. So Bismarck, while trying to fix this problem of a political puddle of milk on the floor, spills even more milk all over the place just like the previous generation had done in the 1840s, to the ultimate detriment of the german people.

Thoughts on 8/26 discussion

When I read these articles from Shorter and Robertson, I felt that there was a loose connection between the two. On page 368 of Robertson's article she writes "these students were, in actual fact, mainly middle class, seeking equality with their social betters under the rubric of equality for all men." In the Shorter article on pg 195 he writes that "apprehension about losing status and power gave the middle class the reactionary stamp we shall encounter in the essays." Both the students and the independent, land-owners saw and felt that the country was going in the wrong direction. However this is where the similarities really cease between the two articles unfortunately in my opinion. It seems to me that the students wanted to, in a somewhat radical way, change the way things were being done. They wanted to be called german students @ german universities instead of Bavarian students at a Prussian university. In many ways the students were leading the way in this "revolution" of sorts, with the Academic Legion and the demand to carry firearms during this time. They were initiating change and indeed causing some"mischief" as Duke Wellington put it. I just don't see that same intensity coming from the middle class. Yeah they're issuing petitions and answering essay contests, but what are they really doing? I think they're just complaining. Complaining about how there's "overpopulation," the poorer classes are wearing clothes like the middle class, the machines should be done away with, and the youth were immoral. Seems like a laundry list of complaints, albeit important issues to them at that time, but complaints none the less. This brings to mind an elderly couple sitting on some park bench talking to each other and complaining about "those darn kids with their iphones, internet, and X-boxes are so spoiled! It wasn't like this in the good ole days." I just think the middle class response was one of reaction, to turn back the clock, to reform the system passively with petitions and essays while the students responded in a more proactive, aggressive manner (i.e students on the barricades) in the streets, and at the rallies trying to get things accomplished.