"Let me have some now, please," I begged; and I ate the raw bacon on a slice of bread, while her husband explained that the demands of the I. L. W. had been granted. The wires had been opened up in the early afternoon, and everywhere the employers' associations had given in. There hadn't been any employers left in San Francisco, but General Folsom had spoken for them. The trains and steamers would start running in the morning, and so would everything else just as soon as system. could be established.

And that was the end of the general strike. I never want to see another one. It was worse than a war. A general strike is a cruel and immoral thing, and the brain of man should be capable of running industry in a more rational way. Harrison is still my chauffeur. It was part of the conditions of the I. L. W. that all of its members should be reinstated in their old positions. Brown never came back, but the rest of the servants are with me. I hadn't the heart to discharge thempoor creatures, they were pretty hard pressed when they deserted with the food and silver. And now I can't discharge them. They have all been unionized by the I. L. W. The tyranny of organized labor is getting beyond human endurance. Something must be done.

(The end)

The state is the result of the desire to keep down class-conflicts. But having arisen amid these conflicts it is as a rule the state of the most powerful economic class, that by force of its economic supremacy becomes also the ruling political class and thus acquires new means of subduing and exploiting the oppressed masses.-Frederick Engels, in "Socialism-Utopian and Scientific."

BY KARL KAUTSKY

THE LATEST PHASE OF REVISIONISM

I

UGAN-BARANOWSKY is no stranger to our readers. More than once, particularly of late, we have had occasaion to take notice of him. This has been due in part to the present industrial situation. We are in the midst of a general crisis, the study of which is one of the most important tasks of economic theorists. Now crises are one of Herr Tugan's specialties; he has made an exhaustive study of them. But if we pay a good deal of attention to him it is only in part due to the fact that he is an authority on industrial crises. His importance is largely due to the fact that he is one of the most distinguished leaders of the revisionists. He represents, with Sombart, the manner and point of view of professorial revisionism. He leaves no stone unturned to make his views the starting point of a new theory.

It is now ten years since Tugan-Baranowsky became active in this direction. The fruitfulness of the revision of Marx must appear in his work if anywhere. A good test is furnished by his latest book, Modern Socialism. All the scientific progress made by the revisionists must be discoverable in this document.

II

We shall take notice here of only one feature of this work, the investigation of the process of economic evolution. It was this that furnished the point of departure for revisionism. Its champions maintained that this evolution has not justified the Marxian theory.

Let us see what Tugan-Baranowsky has to say of the "concentration theory:" "All the most recent data of industrial development corroborate this theory." It is true, we are told, that it does not apply to agriculture; "but this circumstance does not by any means destroy the

significance of the concentration theory in its application to the entire capitalist system; it merely makes necessary a modification." Herr Tugan definitely agrees to what I said on this point in my book on the agrarian question.

He acknowledges likewise that crises do not abate, that they are inevitable, and that trades-unions but intensify them: "The technical resources of modern industry are of such magnitude that the productivity of every capitalistic country has increased by leaps and bounds. This is best shown by the marvelous progress of capitalist industry during periods of industrial prosperity. But such an upward movement never lasts long. Three or four years pass and we are again in the midst of crises, bankruptcy and stagnation. This is the unchangable course of capitalist industry. During the past hundred years every period of prosperity has been followed by one of depression; during the past thirty years the sum total of lean seasons has much exceeded that of the fat ones. It is true that there is going on within the capitalist system a mighty process of unification into associations and combines. But these capitalist organizations are unable to loose the bands which bind social production. On the other hand they make it possible to limit production, to hinder its natural increase. In this lies their chief purpose. Thus the lack of organization in capitalist society, which cannot be done away with by any combination, occasions a good deal of friction in the course of industrial development. This friction sometimes reaches such dimensions that it brings the progress of capitalism to a stand-still, i. e., we have a crisis. That is to say, capitalism condemns the proletariat to endless labor and misery, but it hinders also the growth of social wealth, prevents increase of the productivity of social labor."

We have here all the conclusions which ten years ago the revisionists threw on the scrap-heap amidst prolonged applause from the bourgeoisie.

III

Of all the destructive criticism of that period there remains only the argument against the theory of degeneration and collapse; an argument, however, which does not affect the Marxian doctrine, for it is directed against views for which Marx is not to be held responsible.

In his discussion of the degeneration theory Herr Tugan approaches my own position. He finds my remarks on social degeneration brilliant. and, in great part, just. The increasing needs of the workingman place out of question the possibility of satisfying them. Furthermore, it is possible that Kautsky is right in his other statements; e. g., when he main

tains that the exploitation of the worker by the owner of the means of production has of late increased rather than decreased, that the worker produces ever less for himself and more for the capitalist. All this is possible, but there is no definite proof of it; statistics of wages and incomes are too incomplete to admit of a definitive answer to the question involved. At any rate an amelioration of the position of the laboring class is not irreconcilable with an increase in the per cent of exploitation.

More than this we could surely not ask of a revisionist. He acknowledges that possibly, even probably, exploitation, and thus the gulf between capital and labor, is on the increase.

To be sure Herr Tugan imagines that he scores a triumph over me in this discussion of the degeneration theory: "Kautsky is definitely in error in his statement that this theory of social degeneration is truly. Marxian. Marx was of the opinion that the more powerful become the productive energies of capitalism the keener and more general become social and physical misery; capitalist development not only makes the workingman a pauper, but forces him ever downward in physical, intellectual and moral condition." This last he asks me to acknowledge, "but Kautsky lacks the courage to acknowledge it publicly."

In reality some ten years ago I showed that if one really understands the elements of socialist theory he will interpret the doctrine of the increasing misery of the workingclass to mean its remaining behind in the general advance of society. I cited at that time Lassalle, and referred to Engels, Marx and Rodbertus, all of whom expressed themselves in the same sense. (Bernstein and the Social Democratic Program. p. 119).

If this does not satisfy Tugan-Baranowsky let me serve him another citation from Marx. In his pamphlet entitled Wage-Labor and Capital, Marx discusses the question as to the effect upon the worker of a rise in wages: "A cottage may be small, but so long as the dwellings surrounding it are no larger it satisfies the social requirements of its inhabitants. If, however, a palace raises itself alongside the cottage, the latter shrinks to a hut. Its comparative modesty shows that its inhabitants make only the smallest pretentions. In the course of civilization it may shoot ever so far into the air; if the adjacent palace increases equally in height, or even faster, the inhabitants of the comparatively small house will become constantly more uncomfortable, more discontented.

"A noticeable growth in wages presupposes a rapid growth in productive capital. Rapid increase of productive capital causes rapid increase in wealth and luxury, in social necessities and social enjoyments. Therefore, even if the worker has more, he is less satisfied; the enjoyments of the capitalist have increased faster than his. Our needs and

pleasures are social: we measure them by a social standard; we do not measure them in terms of the objects which give satisfaction. Because they are social, they are relative.

"Wages stand in a certain relation to the profit of the capitalist; so there is such a thing as a relative wage. This is to be distinguished, on the one hand, from the real wage (measured in terms of commodities) and, on the other, from the nominal wage (measured in money). It may fall when both the others rise. If wages rise five per cent and profits thirty, the relative wage has decreased.

"If there comes about, then, an increase in the worker's income, there occurs simultaneously a widening of the social chasm which separates worker from capitalist, a strengthening of the power of the capitalist and further accentuation of the worker's dependence."

The difference between Marxists and revisionists, then, is not to be found here. The revisionists were not the original discoverers of the fact that absolutely the position of the working class is improving; the Marxists never proclaimed a theory of absolute degeneration.

But there is a notable difference of opinion. Herr Tugan acknowledges that until the fifties of the last century the proletariat did really sink farther and farther into misery. From that time on, it seems to him, a steady improvement is discernible. This representation is in the main correct, but his theoretical explanation of it is inconsistent with the facts.

One modification of his statement of fact I should like to make before taking up his theory. He makes the general statement that "during the second half of the last century the conditions of the working class improved." This does not hold true of the entire working class. During the first part of the period in question it was true only of England and there applied only to certain classes of labor. Outside of England a noticeable improvement began only twenty years later, and there, also, merely among the aristocracy of labor.

And now as to his theory. He maintains that the increase in misery and want at the beginning of the nineteenth century was the result of the children's diseases of capitalism. The economic improvement of the proletariat is, according to him, a necessary result of capitalist development. The factory has to lower its wages so long as it has to compete with handicraft and domestic labor. After these are driven from the field "the natural increase in the productivity of labor brings about the tendency of wages to increase."

Against this conception must be urged the fact that at the middle of the last century handicraft was not driven from the field; that this has not even yet been done. Only certain forms of hand labor have dis