MIA > Archive > Lassalle > Voices of Revolt
Written: In German, 1863.
Published in English: 1927.
Translated by: Jakob Altmeier (presumed).
Source: Voices of Revolt: Speeches of Ferdinand Lassalle. International Publishers, first edition, 1927, New York, USA. 94 pages.
Transcription and Markup: Bill Wright for marxists.org, February, 2023
But now I shall indicate the last and true reason why the liberal bourgeoisie cannot bring about political freedom in our country. . . . After we have lost, since 1848, redoubt after redoubt, position after position, in short, everything we gained in that year, you will understand that such a period of fifteen years of history cannot have been an accident; such a period must have an internal motive of which it is the necessary result.
I shall now reveal this cause to you.
You will see that this cause will explain all of German history since 1848 and all of French history since 1789; you will see that the reason for the lack of energy on the part of our Liberal Bourgeoisie, as compared with that of France, is based not merely on the national character, but goes back far deeper, and that the sole path for an attainment of political freedom is that of rallying about the banner I am now defending.
This reason is the following: a merely political freedom can now no longer be successfully achieved, because no material interest, because no class interest, and therefore no class, stands behind this demand . . .
No doubt the liberal bourgeoisie loves liberty, but it loves liberty as one loves an ornament in one’s apartment, as one loves an article of jewelry; if one cannot afford it, one does without! One will face neither drowning nor burning for such an acquisition. The main point for the bourgeoisie remains its material interests, its trade and its habits, its industry and production; but all these require peace, and serious struggles for liberty would merely endanger this peace for the moment. And, therefore, the liberal bourgeoisie would much rather dispense with political freedom than jeopardize the public peace, and thereby its material interests, by resorting to a serious struggle for freedom.
Who, therefore, which class, stands behind the demand for political freedom? The worker, perhaps? Yes, for a few weeks, or even a few months, by reason of his brave and noble heart! And, therefore, he will again and again fight temporary battles for it and carry off its temporary victories, as he did in March, 1848. But in the long run, the worker also will not be content with mere political liberty; that is impossible. The cares for his daily wages, for the existence of his family and himself, take up too much of his attention; he cannot satisfy his hunger on a mere political liberty; and so he will necessarily relinquish the struggle and in the long run let things proceed as they always have done. Just cast a glance on France, and this statement of mine will make clear to you what appeared to be the greatest contradictions in the history of France, the Revolution of 1789, as well as the Napoleonic coup d’état of 1851.[a]
The Revolution of 1789 was by no means only a political revolution; it would be a grave error to assume this. It was a social revolution, a revolution with material interests at stake; the task of the bourgeoisie was to break feudal production in industry and agriculture, and to replace it with a free exploitation of capital, such as we find in power everywhere to-day. For these goals it developed energy and fire.
It was a social revolution, and such were the social and material interests at stake in 1789, as well as later, in 1830. But when, under the Napoleon who now rules,[b] and of whom, of course, it was not seriously to be feared that he would again restore the feudal conditions of production, that he would violate the material interests of the bourgeoisie, in other words, when the point now turned out to be that of defending a merely political liberty against him, the French bourgeoisie was as weak and tired as ours, and calmly permitted itself to be robbed of its political liberty, a process that has now been going on for twelve years!
If the subject of contention in our country to-day were the social liberties of the bourgeoisie that were at stake in 1789, in France, the liberty of capital and all those material interests involved in this liberty, our bourgeoisie might perhaps have displayed the same energy that was shown by the French bourgeoisie. But these material questions are no longer under discussion. Our Governments have prepared themselves in advance. In part at least, they introduced the social phase of the Revolution of 1789 long ago, and a merely political liberty will not arouse the enthusiasm of the bourgeoisie, can do no more than inspire them to pious expressions and innocent rhetorical exercises. I think you will agree that I have shown that no class stands or can stand behind the demand of a merely political liberty.
But this demand is opposed by the military parties and the nobility, the absolutism and the bureaucracy, and, indeed, with the greatest energy, in fact, with all the energy that can be released by social interests; for these classes are concerned with the maintenance of the remnants of their power. The reaction is backed, therefore, by classes with the greatest energy, by classes which will use their nails and teeth; political freedom is backed by no class, has the support of only a handful of ideologists and sentimental enthusiasts. Can it surprise you, therefore, that political freedom has been suffering defeats at the hands of the reaction for the past fifteen years? Can it surprise you, under these circumstances, that the bourgeoisie is powerless and will never be able to fight out its struggle with the military state to the achievement of victory?
The most important thing to be done for political freedom is to back it with a class interest, a social interest, and of course, if possible, the interest of the impoverished classes, whose numbers and energy are so infinitely superior to those of other classes.
Any one who loves political freedom owes me a debt of gratitude for this statement, for even a purely political freedom can secure victory only under this emblem!
No doubt you now feel, gentlemen, how false it was to accuse me of standing in the service of reaction! And I say not only, how false it was! In fact, it would be far beneath me to begin with an attempt to defend my character. . . .
I say, therefore, that this accusation was not only untrue, but that the untruth of it was perfectly apparent to those who raised it against me; I say that they consciously and shamefully distorted the facts! The liberal bourgeoisie does not fear that I am tainted with reaction, as it maintains, but it fears, on the contrary, that the educational work I am carrying on may, in the course of a few years, develop the most serious opposition to the reaction.
Give me 500,000 German workers who will join my organization — and our reaction is a thing of the past! Our bourgeoisie knows this! This is what they fear from me; therefore, they have attacked me with this blind rage, and while they fear that I am seriously demanding political freedom, they accuse me of standing in the service of reaction! . . .
The split between us and the Progressive Party[c] can no longer be avoided. It is a split that resembles the cleaning of the chaff from the wheat. . . . The split is a reality; this is no longer a time for diplomacy or for considerations of expediency; every man among them must now ask himself, on his conscience, whether he belongs to the wheat or to the chaff!
—From Arbeiter-lesebuch.
[a] Napoleonic coup d’état of 1851: For a thorough account, see Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1926 [1852].
[b] Napoleon, Louis (1808-1873): Nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte; President of the Second French Republic, later Emperor of France (until 1871).
[c] Fortschrittspartei (“Progressive Party,” also called Fortschrittsmänner, “Men of Progress”): A liberal party founded in Prussia in 1861 and predominant in the Prussian Diet until 1866, when the National Liberal Party was formed from it.
Last updated on 15 February 2023