MIA > Archive > Lassalle > Voices of Revolt
Written: As a speech in German, delivered November 17th, 1862.
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
What will absolutism do if it has succeeded in putting through a victorious counter-revolution?
Absolutism wants to continue in power. There is no doubt of this. But will it desire to maintain itself in its old form, namely, as a naked, undisguised Absolutism? Will it drop the constitution and continue to govern in the former absolutist method without any constitution at all? God forbid! Absolutism is not as stupid as that. . . . For Absolutism has reluctantly accepted the understanding — having been once subjected to a defeat, which in our case is the defeat of March 18, 1848 — of the fact that the unorganized social power of the citizenry is, in the last analysis, far superior to absolutism; that absolutism may, in a favorable hour, by virtue of the discipline of its organized forces, have defeated the citizenry for the moment, but that the latter continued to be, while unorganized, nevertheless the socially predominant force: in other words that a new conflict may arise at any moment, in which absolutism will be defeated again, and, if this defeat is better utilized by its adversary, this time forever.
Absolutism, once having been made to feel the social power of the citizenry, now has at least some obscure suspicion of the fact that, as a man can beget only a man, an ape only an ape, and every creature, therefore, only a creature that shall resemble him, that shall be made in his image, so in the long run the organized elemental power residing in society must inevitably have produced the organized power — the form of government, let us say — which will resemble it and be made in its image.
Of all these things absolutism has a more or less unclear notion, for after all, the men of the Government are — as I have told you — practical men, with an instinct for things as they are. . . .
No matter how intractable absolutism may pretend to be, it is by no means pleased by the precarious existence it leads in its present outright and open contradiction with the social alignment of forces, incurring at any moment the risk of being overwhelmed and crushed, as if by an avalanche, by the descent of these social forces.
Absolutism, therefore, has only one means of maintaining its existence for a time at least: the figment of the constitution. . . .
As soon as absolutism has taken this step, namely, that of an ostensible constitutionalism, it will have achieved a great advantage and prolonged its existence for an indefinite period.
If absolutism should attempt to continue its existence in the old undisguised form, it could not count on any long life. The outright and open contradiction between absolutism and the social condition would make its overthrow the unchanging and ever renewed slogan of society. All society, in fact, could do nothing else — by the very nature of the case itself — than constitute one great conspiracy for the overthrow of its form of government. No government in the world could maintain such a situation for a very long time! A government may, at a favorable moment, call together its army and carry out a successful attack, a successful counter-revolution, but its situation only becomes much more difficult when the government is the attacked party, is acting on the defensive, with the people the attacker. The advantage in struggles of this kind is always on the part of the attacker, for the reason that it is he that has had the opportunity to choose the moment. It is for this reason that most of the coups d’état carried out by governments in the present century have met with success, but then, so have most of the revolutions on the part of the people. However, a government may even be able to ward off for a certain time, for instance, for a few months, an attack which it expects the people to make upon it. But it is a matter of the utmost difficulty for any government to remain armed for this encounter over long periods, keeping itself on a war footing for the purpose of warding off an attack which will probably be launched upon it at the most awkward moment, when it is involved in other complications of the gravest nature. Such a situation is untenable for any government in the long run, and, therefore, almost inconceivable.
But when an absolutist government has surrounded itself with the empty appearances of constitutional forms and proceeds to continue the practice of the ancient absolutism within these forms, it has carried off an immense advantage. For now, owing to the appearance of a favorably achieved balance between the form of government and the social group predominant in society, the latter has been lulled to sleep and satisfied for the moment. That which was to be fought for appears already to have been achieved. This illusion pacifies the struggle, cripples it and breaks its point, by making great masses of the people either satisfied or indifferent and uninterested. From now on only the forces operating unconsciously in society will — in general — work for an overthrow of the government, and not the real consciousness of society itself.
Pseudo-constitutionalism is, therefore — and it is very important for you, gentlemen, to understand this — by no means an achievement of the people, but, on the contrary, only an achievement of absolutism, and the most essential means for prolonging the existence of the latter.
Pseudo-constitutionalism, therefore, as you will now have understood, is to be found in the fact that the government makes statements of what is not so; that the government declares the State to be a constitutional State, while it is in reality an absolutist State; pseudo-constitutionalism is the lie.
In the struggle with this lie and with its might, the true and obviously victorious instrument is necessarily the exposure of this lie; the proper tactic is simply to destroy the appearance which has made the continuation of the deceptive forms possible, and thus to cut them off from any misleading influence on Tom, Dick and Harry. The proper procedure is to force the lie to take off its mask and to admit to all the world, even formally, that it is really an absolute government.
I tell you that the Diet must — and this is a weapon leading indomitably to a victory — simply state the truth. . . .
All great political action consists in the stating of that which is, and begins with, such a statement.
All political pettifogging consists in concealing and cloaking that which is.
As a matter of fact, gentlemen, I here could — and perhaps ought to — raise grave political accusations, if it were not for the fact that — for the sake of our unity — I consider it better to leave these things unsaid. For years, down to the present day — in and since the inception of the new era — leaders of the people’s party in the press — and even if I should carry my discretion so far as to mention no names, you could not help knowing that I have the so-called Volkszeitung[a] in mind — have been pursuing a method consisting absolutely in no other thing than in the statement of things that are not so. They have proceeded from the assumption that it is necessary to whitewash, to keep secret, to cloak things; according to their mind, it is necessary to persuade the Government that it is a constitutional Government to such an extent that the Government will ultimately believe this statement itself! It is, therefore, their aim to transform the Government by lying. But all true successes in life and in history may be attained only by a real transformation, a real plowing over of the soil, never by a transformation in words of falsehood! These mental starvelings have failed to understand that, without any desire of their own, they have become men of the Government, both in their choice of weapons as well as in the effect of these weapons. In their choice of weapons: for their weapons are the same as those we have become acquainted with in the absolutism that is disguised with a pseudo-constitutionalism, namely, the stating of things that are not so. And likewise, with regard to the operation of these instruments: for these mental starvelings have failed to understand that, in order to impart to the Government through the lies of their newspapers, the idea that the Government is a constitutional Government, they have been obliged daily to preach the same lie to the people and thus actually made the people believe it. These babes have been unable to understand, moreover, that by these lies they have only been encouraging the Government to continue along the path of pseudo-constitutionalism, a path made very smooth and easy by the work of our friends, and I may say that the Government itself was much astonished at the prestige and the halo prepared for it, at the crown of glory of a “new era” which was pressed upon its undeserving head, to such an extent that the Government has finally been able to make military demands. These unhappy men who preached daily in their leading articles against immorality, did not grasp the fact that the lie is a profoundly immoral instrument, which — in the political struggle — may indeed be of advantage to a Machiavellian art of government,[b] but never to the people themselves.
It is these mental defectives who are responsible in great measure for the fact that things have come to the pass to which they have come.
It is they who, with the battle cry: “Men of honor! The Ministers are men of honor! Confide in the Ministers!” have driven the Diet, by their leading articles, to appropriate the provisional budget for the army organization demanded by the pseudo-constitutional Schwerin-Patow Cabinet,[c] which at that time might easily have been refused. It is they who are responsible, therefore, for the fact that it was made possible at all to introduce the army organization bill, and to place us now in the position of having to meet this grave conflict, a thing that would have been impossible without their granting the provisional budget.
But let the dead past bury its dead!
It is our duty, however, to fight the more inexorably, the more jealously, in the serious encounters of the press, to prevent a policy of meretricious cloaking from depriving people of their rights once more. I have revealed to you the means which cannot fail to be followed by an unconditional and positive victory of the people; work for this end! There must be a mutual interaction between the Deputies and public opinion. Set up the means we have just discussed, and make it an educational slogan. Disseminate it, fight for it, throughout the circle of your acquaintances, in public and private places, in the whole sphere of your activity. Consider every man either as a conscious or an unconscious opponent of the good cause if he will not make use of this instrument. The method outlined to you is the only method within the Diet’s power. For, what others are at its disposal? It would obviously be a most lamentable, a most absurd illusion, if the Diet should believe that by continuing in session and continuing to vote down other demands of the Cabinet — even all the Cabinet’s demands — it will be able to put any compulsion on the Cabinet. If the Cabinet dares to tread under foot, to trample on the first unquestionably constitutional refusal on the part of the Diet, and proceed as if the Diet did not exist, how will it be possible to make the second or third or fourth refusal on the part of the Diet more effective? As a matter of fact, the Government would merely form the habit of regarding inconvenient decisions of the Diet as not having been adopted at all. Both Government and people would accustom themselves to this condition. The pleasant habit of disregarding the resolutions of the Diet would become a rooted one, and it would be more rooted among the people — and not without reason — than in the Government. A Diet which would consent, after its constitutionally adopted decisions had been trodden under foot, to continue to deliberate and go through the motions of legislation, to continue playing its part with the Government in this farce of pseudo-constitutionalism would actually be making itself the Government's worst accomplice. For, it would thereby be making it possible for the Government to annihilate the constitutional rights of the people in spite of the fact that the appearance of a constitutional form was being kept up. And the Diet would be more culpable in this procedure than the Government, for there is far more guilt in my own representative, in the man who should defend my rights, and who betrays them instead, than in my adversary himself.
It would perhaps be even worse if the Chamber should . . . consent to introduce . . . a so-called compromise. You must raise your voices particularly against such an eventuality.
No compromise is conceivable on this question. . . .
If the Diet should consent to any form of compromise under these circumstances . . . this would no longer be a compromise, an agreement; it would be a complete surrendering of the public law. It would amount to an installing in office of the Bismarckian[d] diplomatic practice, whose watchword is as follows: when the Government is in conflict with the constitutional right of the Chambers,[e] it is the Diet that must yield. You must, therefore, regard every man outright as a conscious or unconscious — and in the latter case even more dangerous — enemy of the righteous cause, who would here speak of compromise. . . . Let us have no illusions, therefore, of conciliation, gentlemen. You have now gathered sufficient experience to know what the ancient absolutism amounts to. Therefore let us make no new compromise with it, but let our watchword be: our hands around his throat and his shoulders on the ground!
—From Was Nun? ("What Now”), a second lecture on the nature of the constitution, delivered at Berlin, November 17, 1862.
[a] Volkszeitung: A political daily of democratic tendency which began appearing in Berlin, in April, 1853.
[b] Machiavellian Art of Government: Niccolo Machiavelli was a Florentine statesman and writer whose chief work, Il Principe (“The Prince”), contains advice to rulers on the proper manner of mystifying and governing a people.
[c] Schwerin-Patow Cabinet: A “liberal” Prussian ministry, one of the members of which was Count Maximilian Schwerin (1804-1872). Characteristically enough, Schwerin was one of the first “liberals” to vote for the policy of the Bismarck Cabinet in 1866.
[d] Bismarck, Prince Otto von (1815-1898): German statesman; founder of the German Empire; famous for his “Exception Laws” directed against the socialist movement in Germany.
[e] Chamber: This word is used by Lassalle to designate the Lower House of the Prussian Legislature (the “Diet”).
Last updated on 14 February 2023