91

p Social-Democracy as a political trend and a social ideology in the labour movement has existed for nearly a hundred years. Naturally, in its historical development there have been no few happy and impressive aspects that awakened, elevated and revolutionised the working class and helped to shape its class-consciousness. This role was most clearly manifest during the early period of existence of the mass Social-Democratic parties, when the Social-Democratic movement was directed by Marx and Engels. It should also be borne in mind that the most powerful contingent of this movement was headed by such outstanding Marxists as August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, who are rightly called the founders of revolutionary Social-Democracy.

p The birthplace of Social-Democracy, broadly speaking, both as a political party and an ideology was Germany. The working class of that country was the first in the history of the international labour movement to rise to an understanding of the need for uniting into an independent political, class party, and it created such a party. This fact alone is noteworthy. It should be borne in mind that the build-up of the German Social-Democratic Party was attended by profound contradictions and a sharp struggle between the two trends—the liberal and the revolutionary. It was this circumstance that left its mark both on the process of formation of the party and on its subsequent development.

p The fact of the matter is that after the revolutionary storms that swept through Europe in the middle of the last century, a lull set in, and together with it were revealed strong tendencies, on the one hand, towards terrorist suppression of the socialist movement, on the other, towards liberalisation of social life. A favourite method of the bourgeoisie was that of the stick and the carrot. Side by side with harsh court sentences and the promulgation of emergency laws against Socialists, the bourgeoisie encouraged the organisation of all kinds of charitable societies, workers’ associations, co-operative and trade union federations. In the heart of these organisations and societies sponsored by the bourgeoisie a liberal reformist ideology acceptable in every way to the bourgeoisie was created and shaped.

p The breeding-ground for this pernicious ideology was the 92 English trade unions, which initiated the reformist trend in the labour movement. The leaders of trade-unionism, expressing as they did the attitudes of the nascent labour aristocracy, were vehicles of a liberal policy which limited the aims of the working class to improvement of the conditions of employment, mainly by way of factory legislation. This completely shelved the issues of political struggle and left the labour movement confined to current economic problems.

p Naturally, the more progressive and class-conscious elements of the working class strongly resisted the spread of this alien ideology and sought ways of ridding themselves of the tutelage of the bourgeois liberals. In Germany, for example, the separate labour unions were organised in 1863 into an independent political organisation of the German proletariat—Der Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiterverein headed by Ferdinand Lassalle—which set itself the noble aim of tearing the German labour movement away from bourgeois democracy.

p Lassalle’s Workers’ Union, however, proved to be unequal to the task. Instead of becoming a unifying revolutionary centre, it served as a nidus for the reformist trend in the German labour movement. It is not surprising therefore that within six years, in 1869, at Eisenach, the more radical section of the German labour unions formed into a SociaK Democratic Labour Party led by Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel. The Eisenachians proudly called themselves Marxists.

p Thus, at a point between two epochs there emerged in the German working class two parties with two political and ideological trends. Where the Lassallean trend had made the first attempts to awaken the labour movement and tear it away from so-called bourgeois democracy, thus performing a "great deed", as Marx adjudged it, the Eisenachians were to complete this cleavage and advance the labour movement along the road towards genuine democracy for the working people.

p The exigences of socio-economic development imperiously dictated- the need for setting up an integrated, centralised, class-consistent proletarian party, cemented by integral organisational, political and ideological principles. The seventies and eighties of the last century were for Germany a period of rapid development of industry and capitalism, 93 rapid growth of the industrial working class and the awakening of its class consciousness. A real industrial proletariat had now taken the field of political struggle. These important circumstances tended to speed up the unification of the two workers’ parties, and the amalgamation took place at Gothain 1875.  [93•* 

p The formation of a united Social-Democratic Labour Party in Germany was an important event in the history of the whole international labour movement. In the course of nearly half a century the revolutionary parties of the working class in all countries modelled themselves after that party and considered it an honour to call themselves Social- Democratic parties. In the final analysis Marxism as a political trend owed its spread on a world scale to the Social- Democratic movement. Marxism in any event won the minds of the international proletariat and the world’s progressive forces. And this was Social-Democracy’s great historical service.

p The united Social-Democratic Party adopted a programme which in many ways predetermined its further development. Of course, one cannot judge a party’s actions by its programme alone, and Marx in this connection said that any one step of the labour movement is more important than a dozen programmes. In this case, however, it should be said that the Gotha programme of the German Social-Democratic Party with its entire burden of theoretical and political mistakes, which were subjected to a profound criticism by 94

p Marx,  [94•*  exercised also a harmful influence not only on the working class of Germany, but on the whole subsequent international labour movement.

p Despite all these weak sides of the Party, however, it succeeded in quickly winning immense confidence among the working class and masses of Germany. Its prestige was so high that even the "iron chancellor" Bismarck quailed before this mighty political force. Despite the anti-socialist legislation of 1878 the reactionary circles in Germany were unable to destroy the Party or weaken its prestige and influence among the broad labour masses.

p Outlawed for over twelve years, the German Social- Democratic Labour Party not only did not break up, but succeeded in rising still higher in its political activities. By felicitously combining legal and illegal forms of struggle and reacting quickly to all political events within the country the Party staunchly upheld its class positions, and consistently, step by step, secured the repeal of the discriminative law in regard to the Socialists and the socialist movement as a whole. Significant in this respect were the tactics of the Party during the elections to the Reichstag and its notable successes.

p What is more, banned though it was, the German SocialDemocratic Party made tremendous efforts towards organising the international unification of Socialists, taking upon itself the leading role in setting up the Second (Socialist) International, which held its first congress in 1889. We might mention here that in its early days this international socialist forum played an important role in uniting and cementing the international labour movement.

p In speaking of the oustanding role played by the German Social-Democratic Party, we should always bear in mind that if at a definite stage it was able to rise to its full eminence, it owes this to the constant attention given it by the founders of scientific communism Marx and Engels. We know, for example, that after the promulgation of the antisocialist emergency law by the Bismarck government the Party was first thrown into disarray and inclined towards self-liquidation, that is, capitulation. And only thanks to the intervention of Marx and Engels the Party recovered from its shock and took its worthy place in the struggle.

95

p Yes, the leaders of the proletariat always tried to steer the revolutionary ship of the German Workers’ Party on a true course, making it easier for it to weather all gales and winds. In a letter to Bebel dated November 14, 1879, Engels wrote: ". .. It naturally goes without saying that every victory gained in Germany gladdens our hearts as much as one gained elsewhere, and even more so because from the very beginning the German Party has leaned upon our theoretical theses for support in its development. For that very reason we must be particularly careful to see that the practical demeanour of the German Party and especially the public utterances of the Party leadership should be in harmony with the general theory.”  [95•* 

p From the very moment the Party embarked upon its activities Marx and Engels tried their hardest to warn it against two dangerous deviations: on the one hand, from the Party shutting itself up into a sect, on the other, from becoming submerged in the welter of petty-bourgeois ideology. Both these dangers had objective grounds and were equally capable of causing irremediable damage to the Party. These scientific admonitions have lost none of their profound significance for the international communist movement of today.

p History shows that any socialist movement in any country during the first phase of the working-class struggle against the bourgeoisie is bound to pass through the sectarian stage. Secret societies, groups of revolutionary theorists, at first poorly linked or not linked at all with the broad circles of the workers, were characteristic of the first steps of the proletarian class struggle in any country. In a word, they (the sects) represent "the infancy of the proletarian movement, just as astrology and alchemy represented the infancy of science”.  [95•**  Marx and Engels believed sectarianism to be a sign that "the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historical movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity all sects are essentially reactionary.”  [95•***  And since the young workers’ Party of Germany had just emerged from a state of the sectarian movement and embarked on a 96 mature class movement, Marx was fully justified in warning it against a possible reversion to antiquated old ancestry.

p Marx also had good reason for warning against the second danger, that of the Party being submerged in a welter of petty-bourgeois elements. In entering the arena of broad class struggle the working class was bound to rally behind it and unite the petty-bourgeois strata, without whose support it cannot achieve victory, cannot carry out its historical liberative mission. But the numerous petty-bourgeois strata, as we know, are extremely susceptible to bourgeois ideology "with its goddesses of Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity”.  [96•* 

p That is why Marx and Engels, foreseeing the further growth of the Party and its transformation into a mass party, had good reason to warn against the danger of the Party being engulfed in the wave of bourgeois elements. Engels mentioned this in his letter to Bebel dated November 24, 1879: "The influx of petty bourgeois and peasant testifies, it is true, to the tremendous successes of the movement, but at the same time it becomes dangerous to it the moment it is forgotten that these people must come and they only come because they must. Their joining proves that the proletariat has really become a leading class. But as they come with petty-bourgeois and peasant ideas and aspirations, it should not be forgotten that the proletariat will not fulfil its historical leading role if it makes concessions to these ideas and aspirations.”  [96•** 

p In reflecting upon the meaning of these Marxist warnings we can but marvel how farsighted and shrewd they were for their day and how real they are for the movement of today. Subsequent events showed that from the sectarian roots there grew the prickly shoots of “Left” revolutionarism with its barbed offshoots of Bakuninist anarchism, Blanquist conspiracy and Trotskyist adventurism. Similarly, the rotten roots of petty-bourgeois ideology yielded just as rotten shoots in the shape of various modifications of Right reformism. Both then and in our time, however, it would be difficult to draw a clear line between these two opportunist kinks. They are so closely interwoven, so impregnated with chauvinism and nationalistic accretions that it has become 97 almost impossible to say with any degree of accuracy whether it is Right or Left sectarian perversions we are dealing with.

p Placing great hopes on the German Social-Democratic Labour Party, Marx and Engels invariably drew the attention of its leaders to the danger of these two deviations, as witnessed by their voluminous correspondence with the Party’s leaders. Their high-hearted hopes, however, were not justified. Soon after Marx’s death there were revealed the first symptoms of grave deviations in the activities of the Party. Left-sectarian and Right-reformist trends appeared in it. The situation was complicated by the fact that Engels, engrossed in the titanic task of preparing the second and third volumes of Marx’s Capital for the press, could not give such close attention to ideological guidance of the Party as he had done by way of duty distribution during Marx’s lifetime.

p Besides, Engels was quite sure that given such an experienced proletarian leader as Bebel the Party would not stray from the right path. In fact, at the beginning Bebel was intolerant of any manifestation of opportunism or backsliding. Being the educated Marxist he was, he could sway men’s minds by sheer power of conviction and profound argumentation of political and doctrinal issues. Perceiving a tendency on the part of many leaders of the Party to "grow into" the existing society and turn the Party into an instrument of parliamentary struggle, Bebel clearly defined his disagreement with them. "The differences," he said, "consist in the general understanding of the movement as a movement of classes which pursues great aims, directed at remodelling the world, and which must pursue such aims, and therefore cannot agree to compromises with the dominant society. If it does this it will simply perish or even come to life again in a new shape, but without its present leaders.”  [97•* 

p Bebel, during Engels’s lifetime, had discovered certain unhealthy symptoms of factionalism and had remarked with concern that unless they were eliminated a split "was bound to occur in the course of further development". In support of this correct conclusion he mentioned the fact that in the process of intense struggle not everyone was destined to 98 stand up to its harsh trials, a circumstance which Engels had often complained of. "There is no doubt," Bebel wrote, "that some of our leaders have long tired of the struggle, that they had been led against their will further than they were inclined to go by their nature or by their views. Now they are connected with us only outwardly because they either do not grasp the divergence in views or do not count on the sympathy of the masses and are afraid to lose their present positions.”  [98•*  And as if cautioning against -the temptation of enemy ilattery he sternly and at the same time paternally warned the revolutionary leaders: // the enemy praises you, then you are doing wrong! This warning has lost none of its political significance today.

p August Bebel, the outstanding leader of the German working class, to the end of his life remained an irreconcilable enemy of bourgeois society and its political system. "August Bebel’s struggle was rooted in the best traditions of the German working class. But August Bebel failed to grasp the great historical task which confronted the labour movement with the advent of the epoch of imperialism—the task of creating a party of a new type.”  [98•**  Objectively speaking, if Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht had kept to a firm Marxist line throughout and not yielded to a spirit of conciliation towards Right-reformist and Left-sectarian manifestations, the Party would definitely have averted the tragic crisis which was precipitated soon after Engels’s death. This lesson of history is most instructive not only for our revolutionary generation, but for the coming struggle.

p To the revisionists’ savage attacks against the fundamental tenets of Marxist theory, of which we have already spoken, were added fierce attacks against the political, organisational and tactical principles of the Party. All this was strongly reminiscent of the procession of Echternach dancers.  [98•***  At first the Party took three steps forward, then two steps back. Then in the course of the movement it started in the direction of one step forward, two steps back, and ended up by 99 moving only in a regressive direction. This was the ultimate point, beyond which lay an inescapable gulf. It was to this brink that the opportunists brought a once strong and fighting-fit workers’ party.

p The first thing to appear were the soap bubbles of bourgeois nationalism. A wide discussion was started in the social-democratic press on the subject of nations and national relationships, patriotism and internationalism, colonial policy and relations between the colonies and metropolises, state sovereignty and national independence. Such discussions in themselves on such controversial issues are quite legitimate and should stimulate theoretical thought. But on his very first acquaintance with the published materials the reader became aware that they were spearheaded at a revision of Marxist doctrine on the whole range of questions touched upon.

p In the sphere of the national question the concept of identity of interests was put over and the class substance of national relationships was cast aside. Already at that time bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism could be clearly traced in this concept. The nationalities policy of the theoreticians of German Social-Democracy, as Lenin pointed out, was based on the concept of cultural-national autonomy which was subsequently amplified by the Social-Democratic theoreticians of Austria—Otto Bauer and Karl Springer (Renner).

p In the sphere of colonial policy the expansionist, predatory doctrine of German imperialism was fully justified. Claiming that the colonial peoples, owing to their backwardness, were incapable of independent economic and cultural development, the revisionists demanded more intensive penetration of German capital in the colonies. Already at that time the Germans were being conditioned to accept the maniacal idea of Lebensraum and the superiority of the German nation. "In this respect," wrote Bernstein, "the German social democracy would have nothing to fear from the colonial policy of the German Empire." "Otherwise, there is some justification during the acquisition of colonies to examine carefully their value and prospects, and to control the settlement and treatment of the natives as well as the other matters of administration; but that does not amount to a reason for considering such acquisition beforehand as something reprehensible." "Moreover, only a conditional right of savages to 100 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1972/ATPH293/20090605/199.tx" the land occupied by them can be recognised. The higher civilisation ultimately can claim a higher right.”  [100•* 

p In the sphere of patriotism and internationalism the revisionists came out openly in favour of nationalism and chauvinism. In attacking the Marxist thesis to the effect that under the conditions of bourgeois society the proletariat has no fatherland, Bernstein rejected this postulate out of hand. He painted an idyllic picture of capitalist progress and general prosperity, exclaiming that the very concept “ proletariat” had already disappeared, and that now, under the conditions of capitalism, the working class is getting some colour in its cheeks and developing its muscles. In adopting a stand of bourgeois nationalism and chauvinism, Bernstein, by the very run of things, was committed to the defence of German militarism. Already at that time he propounded with fullest definiteness the obscurantist thesis that in the event of war Social-Democrats were to call on the working class to take up arms in defence of their country. That is what happened when the First World War broke out and the Social-Democratic parties of Europe with the help of the Second International found themselves on the field of battle engaged in mortal combat with one another in defence of the fatherland of the imperialists.

p Parallel with the elaboration of the revisionist political line the renegades gradually refined the new organisational principles of the Party, which they geared to the reformist policy. Whereas initially the Party had formed and developed on the basis of the Marxist principle of democratic centralism, it was now having implanted in it the principle of “autonomism”. The governing functions of the Party began gradually to pass from the Party Executive to the parliamentary group, which, incidentally, was wholly dependent on the press. The provincial Party organisations, in their turn segregated into independent corporations isolated from the centre and from the parliamentary group. The Party was in complete disarray, its activities marked by confusion and vacillation.

p To cap all this disruptive revisionist activity the question of the nature of the Party itself, its place and purpose was openly raised. The time had now come to announce for all to hear a long-cherished design which had found utterance 101 on the lips of that choir-master of revisionism Eduard Bernstein. In order to evoke a wide response among the masses, he wrote, social-democracy must pluck up courage and renounce its revolutionary pretensions. In doing so it will "emancipate itself from a phraseology which is actually outworn", and will try "to appear what it is in reality today —a democratic, socialistic party of reform”.  [101•* 

p Everything now was put in its proper place. The revisionists had not only set forth their platform on a whole series of important issues but had seized the reins of Party leadership pretty firmly. The situation within the Party had reached a point when a split became inevitable. The Party entered a new phase of struggle, when it became necessary to arraign the reformist platform of the revisionists before the bar of the Party congress. And this last phase of the struggle unfolded all down the line.

p The first straight talk concerning the revisionist concept of Bernstein and his supporters took place at the Party congress in Stuttgart in 1898. The debate was of an extremely keen nature. It revealed the flounderings, cowardice and hypocrisy of the revisionists, while at the same time demonstrating that the Marxists still had a shot in the locker. The vigorous speeches of August Bebel, Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg and others contained a devastating criticism of Bernstein’s revisionist views. On the whole, however, the congress did not come up to scratch. In its appraisal of the revisionists it did not go beyond verbal, exhortative criticism and adopted no decision on this question.

p This, of course, was an unpardonable concession to the revisionists, which was bound to encourage further attacks against Marxism on their part. As if in requital for the congress Bernstein came out with a series of anti-Marxist articles. This time, without beating about the bush, he urged a complete revision of Marxism and set forth his views on the Party, which he said, was to renounce its revolutionary principles and become a democratic, socialistic party of reform. Naturally, this drew a storm of protest from the Party and served as ground for the further struggle within the Party.

p The second dialogue on revisionism took place at the Party congress in Hannover in 1899. One would think that 102 a more definite decision would be arrived at here, all the more as relevant proposals had been made in regard to the organisational conclusions to be drawn from the conduct of the revisionist leaders. But something of a reverse nature occurred, ^and the debate itself was not as keen as it had been at the previous congress. The Party’s leaders confined themselves to moving a resolution reaffirming the unimpeachable basic class principles of the Party.

p “The Party," ran the resolution, "adheres as before to the standpoint of the class struggle, according to which the emancipation of the workers is the business of the workers themselves and therefore considers it the historical task of the working class to win political power in order, with the aid of it, and by way of socialisation of the means of production and the introduction of socialist forms of production and exchange, to achieve the greatest possible welfare for all people.... In view of this the Party has no grounds for changing either its principles and basic demands, or its tactics, or finally its designation, that is, from a social- democratic party into a democratic-socialistic party of reform, and emphatically rejects any attempt whose aim is to change or disguise its attitude towards the existing state or social order and towards the bourgeois parties.”  [102•* 

p Outwardly, the resolution rejected revisionism but did not condemn, leave alone put a stop to its disruptive activities. In substance, the resolution covered up the stark nakedness of revisionism and tried to paper over the cracks. It is not surprising that even Bernstein’s most ardent supporters voted wholeheartedly for such a resolution. Thus, peacefully and quietly, the Party forum dealt with the brazen-faced open attacks of the revisionists. In the impartial judgement of historians the congress, strictly speaking, founded "bashful opportunism", which eventually turned into opportunist Centrism. This line was demonstrated most clearly at the Party congress in Liibeck in 1901, where criticism of revisionism was generally damped down. Now the central leadership itself was entreating Bernstein to help the Party out of its "ambiguous plight" and assuring him that the Party did not entertain any distrust of him. That was how Marxists started to fight revisionism!

p Thus there arose in the labour movement a new form of 103 opportunism—“Centrism”, representing its most infamous variety. This trend was fathered by Karl Kautsky, whom Lenin, with full justification, called a renegade and apostate of the first rank. “Centrism” is not a trend occupying an intermediate position between the Right and “Left” wings and reconciling them, as it were. Centrism’s main efforts were directed at weakening and rendering harmless the ideological struggle of the Party’s revolutionary forces against opportunism by appealing to the Marxists for compliance, tolerance and peaceful coexistence with the opportunists of all stripes. Centrism virtually became the strongpoint of the opportunists and was the most harmful political movement directed against the revolutionary Marxists.

p The Dresden Party congress, held in 1903, was to have become a decisive phase in the struggle for the triumph of Marxist principles in the life of German Social-Democracy. In fact, all the healthy and truly revolutionary forces of the Party pinned great hopes in the congress, and this was most clearly expressed among the Party’s labour core. The criminal, disruptive activities of the Right-reformist leaders had terrorised the Party to such an extent that no true revolutionary could tolerate it any longer. Here was the most convenient opportunity to deal Right revisionism a crushing blow.

p The Party was faced with the dilemma of either clearing its ranks of the despicable renegades who had deserted to the camp of the bourgeoisie and betrayed the working class, or deciding on a split and forming a separate Marxist revolutionary party. But the irremediable tragedy was that neither the one nor the other took place at the congress. Assured of the Centrists’ position, the renegades at the very beginning of the congress threw aside all restraint. Their pre-arranged tactics was aimed at compromising by all kinds of insinuations and slandering the prominent leaders of the Marxist wing. They selected as their chief target the distinguished Marxist fighter Franz Mehring.

p But here they suffered a setback. Mehring delivered a brilliant denunciatory speech against the slanderers which created a tremendous impression. The shaft struck home and prevented the renegades from villifying the proletarian revolutionaries with impunity. Nevertheless, despite the fact that there was a real chance of dealing a body-blow to Right revisionism, the Marxists failed to use that opportunity. The 104 leaders of Centrism promptly came to the rescue of the reformists with a hastily introduced and allegedly radical resolution which attempted by means of paper to eradicate the opportunist contagion. "The Party congress," said the resolution, "strongly condemns any revisionist attempts to change our tried and successful tactics based on the class struggle in the sense that the winning of political power by means of overcoming the opponent should give place to a policy of adaptation to the existing order of things.”  [104•*  It went on to mention the erroneousness of revisionist tactics and suchlike evils.

p And what happened next? The finale, frankly, turned out a tragicomedy. The revisionists, amid taunting cheers, carried this resolution to a man. It was obvious to everyone that the Party v/as so impregnated with the poison of revisionism that it had utterly lost the power of taking up its former revolutionary positions. Marxist historians subsequently agreed that if the Dresden Party congress had succeeded in expelling the revisionists or setting up an independent Marxist party, which was done fifteen years later, in 1918, the German Communists, closing in single ranks with the Russian Bolsheviks, might possibly have simultaneously carried out a great socialist revolution in Germany.

p However, the opportunity was lost. The Party was completely disorientated. There could *be no question now of a split, still less of founding a new party, since it no longer had the strength for this. Eventually reformism completely engulfed the leaders of Centrism, and the official policy and practice of the Party were brought in line with the demands of the revisionists. All the existing contradictions were smoothed over on the common platform of reformism. Peace and harmony reigned within the Party. If there were any critical rumblings the reformist leaders quickly muffled them with edifying sermons urging greater courtesy, correctness, delicacy and culture. In place of open criticism and self-criticism backstage deals and unprincipled compromises became a growing practice within the Party, and sterile dialogues and debates were held on all and every occasion, sometimes dragging on for weeks and months.

p And so a once revolutionary party completely lost its former fighting powers, wilted and ran to seed. "Long before 105 the First World War the revisionists and Centrists had occupied key positions in the Party. German Social- Democracy had become a reformist labour party. In Germany there was no longer a revolutionary Marxist militant party that could lead the working class in the fight to defend its class interests and the interests of the nation and carry out its historical mission.”  [105•* 

p This was brought home to Bebel towards the end of his life, but it was already too late. On the one hand, he had grown too old, worn out by the arduous struggle, on the other, he tearfully resigned himself to the prevailing situation and refused to believe that the big Party which he had created had become a small one. This was his profound and irreparable mistake. He missed by one year that fatal moment when his “big” Party became a stinking corpse. And the fatal consequences of compromise with opportunism, which Bebel was no longer able to see, were recognised with mental anguish by Franz Mehring, when, in 1918, in his "Open Letter", he said: "The former German Social- Democracy with its ’old tested tactics’ is broken up and buried beneath the wheels of imperialism’s triumphal chariot.”  [105•** 

In this connection the question naturally arises: was everything properly considered at the initial stage of amalgamation of the German Social-Democratic Party? Were all its diverse elements properly conditioned to accept the idea of unification? Of course, we see all this now more clearly, and can say definitely that here, at the initial stage, were sown the seeds that were likely to produce grave consequences. Marx and Engels, who closely followed development of the labour movement in Germany, had warned Bebel and Liebknecht against a too hasty amalgamation of the two diverse political trends. These two leaders, however, had been able to persuade their teachers that the conditions for amalgamation were ripe and that the united workers’ party 106 would rest firmly upon the theoretical principles of scientific communism and take a determined stand against all forms of revisionism. What happened later, we have just seen.