p “Herr Schulze-Gävernitz’s one-sided presentation of the history of modern British development, against which I came out very sharply in the past, has not prevented him, either in his Zum sozialen Frieden or in his monograph Der Grossbetrieb—ein wirthschaftlicher Fortschritl, from establishing facts of great importance for an understanding of the economic significance of our times,” says Herr Bernstein. "I see nothing bad in that, and willingly admit 374 that I have noted many facts quoted by Schulze-Giivernitz as well as by other economists of the Brentano school (Herkner and Sinzheimer), facts I had not previously noticed or had underestimated. I am not even ashamed to admit that I have learnt something from J. Wolf’s book Sozialismus und kapitalistische GeselIschaftsordnung. Herr Plekhanov calls this an eclectic blending (of scientific socialism) with the doctrine of bourgeois economists. As though nine-tenths of the elements of scientific socialism have not been taken from the works of ’bourgeois economists’, and as though, in general, there exists such a thing as ’partisan science’" (pp. 306 and 307).

p Strictly speaking, "partisan science" is impossible, but, regrettably enough, the existence is highly possible of “scientists” who are imbued with the spirit oj parties and with class selfishness. When Marxists speak of bourgeois science with contempt, it is " scientists" of that brand that they have in view. It is to such “scientists” that the gentlemen Herr Bernstein has “learnt” so much from belong, viz. J. Wolf, Schulze-Gavernitz, and many others. Even if nine-tenths of scientific socialism has been taken from the writings of bourgeois economists, it has not been taken in the way in which Herr Bernstein has borrowed from the Brentanoists and other apologists of capitalism the material he uses to “revise” Marxism. Marx and Engels were able to take a critical attitude towards bourgeois scientists, something that Herr Bernstein has been unable or unwilling to do. When he “learns” from them, he simply places himself under their influence arid, without noticing the fact, adopts their apologetics. He imagines that the doctrine of the growth of moderate incomes as proof of the absolute and relative rise in the number of property-owners is a serious advance in objective science, whereas it is actually an apologetical fabrication. Were Herr Bernstein capable of scientific thinking, he would not have barked up the wrong tree, as he has done, but then he would not have written his book.

p As far back as the autumn of 1898, we voiced the thought that Herr Bernstein had set about “criticising” Marx solely because of his inability to treat bourgeois apologetics critically.  [374•*  We also noted at the time the curious fact that even Herr Bernstein’s muchtalked-of expression, "the movement is everything, the ultimate aim is nothing”, had been borrowed by him from Schulze-Gavernitz. Incapable to advance any objections to us on fundamentals, Herr Bernstein has had recourse to abusive language, to which we find 375 no reason to react.  [375•*  We set high value on Herr Bernstein’s hostility to us, and are proud to have been among the first to draw attention to his apostasy, and brand it. "It is a question of who will bury whom" we wrote in the article in question, "whether Bernstein will bury Social-Democracy, or Social-Democracy will bury Bernstein." This posing of the qustion seemed too harsh to many of our comrades in 1898, but that is exactly how the matter is now seen by all in the ranks of revolutionary Social-Democracy. The ensuing course of events fully confirmed the justice of our words. We had not the slightest wish in the past to engage in any altercation with Herr Bernstein and we have no wish to do that today either, but we cannot withstand the temptation to note the following interesting detail.

p Herr Bernstein has interpreted the remarks we directed against him in the sense that we consider the worker’s condition in capitalist society “hopeless”; he has declared that he does not wish to enter into argument "with a person according to whose concepts science demands that the worker’s condition should be considered hopeless in all circumstances, right up to the great upheaval" (pp. 309–10). What severity of epithet! However, we come across the following passage in the severe Bernstein’s book:

p In the doctrine of Marx and Engels, "only the following remains unrefuted: that the productive capacity in present-day society is far greater than the actual demand for products as determined by purchasing power; that millions are living in squalid dwellings, are poorly clad and undernourished despite the abundance of means to provide them with sufficient housing, food and clothing; that overproduction is a consequence of this disproportion in various branches of industry...; that there consequently exists 376 considerable unfairjicss in providing the workers with occupations, as a result of which their conditions become most precarious, subjecting them to ever more humiliating dependence because of the excess of work at one place, and unemployment at another" (pp. 145–46).

p As is her wont, Mme. Kantsel has made a poor translation of Herr Bernstein, who says that the workers are kept in humiliating dependence, and not that they find themselves in eier greater dependence, as the translator lias made him say. But even in this correct translation, Herr Bernstein’s idea has struck hack at him. Indeed, is not the condition hopeless, in capitalist society, of a class which, despite the amazing growth of labour productivity, remains in the economic condition and the humiliating dependence that we read of in Herr Bernstein’s writings? It is patently hopeless, and obviously it is only the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, the social revolution, that can bring the proletariat out of that hopeless condition.  [376•*  Herr Bernstein has not made a neat job of it in his new world-outlook.

p Herr Bernstein asks sapiently: "Does not the vast extension of the area of the world market" (i.e., its size; we are obliged to reiterate that Mme. Kantsel has made a very poor translation of the book under review.—G.P.) "combined with the vast reduction of the time required for the transmission of news and the operation of transport—does it not enhance the possibility of a relaxation of depressions; and then, the steeply mounting wealth of the European industrial states, in connection with the flexibility of presentday credit and the rise of industrial cartels—has this not restricted, at least for a long time to come, the influence of local or partial depressions on the overall situation to such an extent that universal business" (i.e., industrial.—G.P.) "crises such as the former should be considered improbable?" (P. 126.)

The events have provided the answer to this question: since the middle of last year  [376•**  the civilised world has been experiencing a general industrial crisis, whose approach was foreseen by some bourgeois businessmen already at the time Iferr Bernstein was writing his book.