^{page 202 note 1} Fragmentary treatment of the problem may be found in Mehring, Franz, Geschichte der deutschen Sozialdemokratie (8th and 9th ed.; Stuttgart, 1919), IV, passimGoogle Scholar; Mayer, Gustav, Friedrich Engels. Eine Biographie (The Hague, 1934), II, pp. 338–42, 356–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Engelberg, Ernst, Revolutionäre Politik und Rote Feldpost, 1878–1890 (Berlin-East, 1959), pp. 53–95Google Scholar; Landauer, Cad, European Socialism (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1959), I, pp. 275–83.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 1} Vogel, Walter, Bismarcks Arbeiterversicherung (Brunswick, 1951), pp. 67ff.Google Scholar; Saile, Wolfgang, Hermann Wagener und sein Verhältnis zu Bismarck. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des konservativen Sozialismus (Tübingen, 1958)Google Scholar, passim.

^{page 203 note 2} Schoeps, Hans-Joachim, “Hermann Wagener – Ein Konservativer Sozialist. Ein Beitrag zur Ideengeschichte des Sozialismus”, in: Zeitschrift für Religions – und Geistesgeschichte, VIII (1956), pp. 214–15.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 3} Cf. Ascher, Abraham, “Professors as Propagandists: The Politics of the Kathedersozialisten”, in: Journal of Central European Affairs, XIII (10, 1963), pp. 282–302Google Scholar; Herkner, Heinrich, Die Arbeiterfrage (6th ed.; Berlin, 1916), II, pp. 149–56.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 4} Wagner addressed the Protestant Kirchentag in October 1871 on the social question. His efforts are well covered in Shanahan, William O., German Protestants Face the Social Question (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1954), I, pp. 401–06.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 1} For a short while in the seventies, some of the Social Democrats in Berlin were enamored with the work of Eugen Dühring, a Privatdozent at the University of Berlin, who can not be considered a conservative socialist. That phase passed before the decade was out. It was not long before Dühring was remembered more through Engels' famous rebuttal than for his own works which were involved, verbose and quarrelsome. After 1878 Dühring's name seldom, if ever, appeared among the Social Democrats. He disappeared from their horizon as rapidly as he had appeared. Cf. Mayer, , II, pp. 282–95Google Scholar; Gay, Peter, The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism: Eduard Bernstein's Challenge to Marx (New York, 1952), pp. 94–103Google Scholar; Bernstein, Eduard, Sozialdemokratische Lehrjahre (Berlin, 1928), pp. 52–55.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 2} Since State Socialism as a theory emerged in Germany, it was frequently associated only with that country. See e.g., the definition under “Sozialismus”, Meyers Grosses Konversations-Lexikon (6th ed.; Leipzig and Vienna, 1909), XVIII, p. 641Google Scholar. Socialism of every brand was occasionally treated by British writers as a foreign doctrine. See e.g., the as sertions by the Oxford Professor of Political Economy, Rogers, J. E. Thorold, in “Contemporary Socialism”, Contemporary Review, XLVII (01–06, 1885), pp. 51–64.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 3} The Englishman John Rae, disliking State Socialism as a total system but nevertheless an advocate of social reform, went to great lengths to show that the true tradition of English “social politics” viewed the state as social reformer but not as socialist. Rae, John, Contemporary Socialism (3rd ed.; New York, 1901), pp. 343–409Google Scholar; and “State Socialism”, Contemporary Review, LIV (July–Dec, 1888), pp. 224–45, 378–92Google Scholar. Popular denunciations of State Socialism came also from the pens of Manchester Liberals in Germany. See e.g., Bamberger, L., Barth, Th. and Broemel, M., Gegen den Staatssozialismus (Berlin, 1884).Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 1} The most serious effort to work out a theory of State Socialism was made by Adolf Wagner. He sought to develop a kind of middle ground between the principles of “Individualism” and “Socialism” (the latter taken as total collectivization). Wagner, Adolph, Grundlegung der Politischen Oekonomie (3rd ed.; Leipzig, 1892), I, pp. 58–61Google Scholar. See also Herkner, , II, pp. 68–72, 194–202Google Scholar; Dawson, William H., Bismarck and State Socialism (London, 1891), pp. 3–13Google Scholar; Jantke, Carl, Der Vierte Stand (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1955), pp. 203–28Google Scholar; Walling, William English and Laidler, Harry W. (eds.), State Socialism, Pro and Con (New York, 1917), p. vii.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 2} Ziekursch, Johannes, Politische Geschichte des neuen deutschen Kaiserreiches (Frankfurt am Main, 1927), II, pp. 305–06.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 3} Quoted in Schröder, Wilhelm (ed.), Handbuch der sozialdemokratischen Parteitage von 1863 bis 1909 (Munich, 1910), p. 127.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} Schäffle, Albert, The Quintessence of Socialism (2nd ed.; London, 1890), pp. 1–2Google Scholar. The English edition was translated from the 8th German edition, but Schäffle had made no substantive changes in the original text, except for the last chapter which is not used in this paper.

^{page 206 note 2} Bebel in the Reichstag on April 18, 1877, Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Reichstages, III Legislative Period, Session 1 (1877), vol. I, p. 570Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Sten. Ber.); Bernstein, Eduard, pp. 70–72Google Scholar; Kautsky, Karl, Erinnerungen und Erörterungen, ed. Kautsky, Benedikt (The Hague, 1960), p. 410.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 3} Schäffle, , p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 1} Ibid., pp. 17–18.

^{page 207 note 2} Ibid., pp. 50–51.

^{page 207 note 3} -s, “Zutn Reichseisenbahn-Project”, in: Die Zukunft, I (1877/1878), p. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 4} Ibid., p. 79.

^{page 207 note 5} Ibid., p. 80.

^{page 208 note 1} –m, “Ueber den Gewerbebetrieb der Communen”, in: Die Zukunft, I (1877/1878), pp. 242–43, 245–46Google Scholar. The author may have been Carl August Schramm, a Social Democrat who was expelled from Berlin in 1878 and went to Zurich where he was a close associate of Karl Höchberg. Schramm was later one of the defenders of Rodbertus within the party.

^{page 208 note 2} –m, “Ueber den Zusammenhang des wirthschaftlichen und des politischen Princips im demokratischen Socialismus”, in: Die Zukunft, I (1877/1878), pp. 296–97.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 3} B—d, “Zur Frage des staatlichen und communalen Gewerbebetriebes”, in: Die Zukunft, I (1877/1878), pp. 361–62.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 4} Bebel, August, “Der Gewerbebetrieb durch den Staat und die Commune”, in: Die Zukunft, I (1877/1878), pp. 465–66.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 5} Ibid., pp. 467–68.

^{page 208 note 6} Ibid., p. 470.

^{page 209 note 1} Bracke, Wilhelm to Engels, Friedrich, April 26, 1878Google Scholar, quoted in: Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, Briefe an A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, K. Kautsky und Andere. Teil I, 1870–1886, ed. W. Adoratski (Moscow-Leningrad, 1933), p. 175.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 2} Herkner, , II, pp. 97–98Google Scholar; Göhre, Paul, Die evangelisch-soziale Bewegung, ihre Geschichte und ihre Ziele (Leipzig, 1896), pp. 10ff.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} Oertzen, Dietrich von, Adolf Stöcker, Lebensbild und Zeitgeschichte (Berlin, 1910), I, pp. 138–46Google Scholar; Frank, Walter, Hofprediger Adolf Stöcker und die christlichsoziale Bewegung (2nd ed.; Hamburg, 1935), pp. 43–50.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 1} Frank, , p. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 2} The only serious threat from Stöcker's Christian Social Party as a popular contender with the Social Democrats came in the elections of 1881 in Berlin. Throughout Germany the Social Democrats lost ground in 1881, especially in Berlin. In Berlin's second district, where Stöcker campaigned, the Social Democratic percentage dropped from 26.3 in 1878, to 9.5 in 1881. In the fourth district, where Bebel ran against Adolf Wagner (on a “Social Conservative” ticket) the Social Democratic percentage dropped from almost 50 in 1878, to 32 in 1881. In their greatest stronghold, the sixth district, their percentage dropped from 41 in 1878, to 27 in 1881. Cf. Neumann-Hofer, Adolf, Die Entwicklung der Sozialdemokratie bei den Wahlen zum deutschen Reichstage 1871–1903 (3rd ed.; Berlin, 1903), p. 30Google Scholar; Bernstein, Eduard, Die Geschichte der Berliner Arbeiterbewegung (Berlin, 1907), II, p. 75.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 3} Sten. Ber., IV. Leg., Session 2 (1879), vol. II, p. 1282Google Scholar. The official position of the Social Democratic Party held that protectionism was purely an issue within capitalism and, therefore, did not directly concern socialist principles. See Schroder, , p. 271Google Scholar. The Social Democratic Reichstag delegation was little concerned in 1879 to achieve party unity on these economic issues. This is evidenced by the fact that Bebel and the other delegates knew that Kayser was in complete agreement with Bismarck's tariff and yet they chose him to speak for the party on the tariff bill. See Bebel, 's letter to Wilhelm Bracke, April 13, 1879Google Scholar, quoted in Eckert, Georg (ed.), Aus den Anfängen der Braunschweiger Arbeiterbewegung (Brunswick, 1955), p. 64.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 1} The most vitrolic attack against Kayser was launched by Karl Hirsch, a Social Democrat in exile who published a pocket-size periodical, Die Laterne, between December 1878 and June 1879. He filled several issues with bombast against Kayser. Johann Most, shortly to become an anarchist, also heaped bitterness on Kayser. See Freiheit, Die, No. 21, May 24, 1879Google Scholar. It is nevertheless clear that Kayser had numerous comrades in the party who supported him on protectionism, as indicated by Bebel, August, Aus meinem Leben (Stuttgart, 1914), III, pp. 63–64, 75–76.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 2} The recent biography on von Vollmar does not make any suggestion as to whether or not he wrote these articles. It is pointed out that he was later an opponent of the Tobacco Monopoly. Jansen, Reinhard, Georg von Vollmar: Eine politische Biographie (Düsseldorf, 1958), p. 29.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 3} “Neue Taktik, I”, in: Der Sozialdemokrat, No. 23, June 6, 1880 (hereafter cited as SD).Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 4} “Neue Taktik, II”, in: SD, No. 24, June 13, 1880.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 5} Rackow, H., “Gegen das Tabaksmonopol”, SD, No. 27, 07 4, 1880Google Scholar; and two articles signed “Dbsch” (identity not known), “Gegen die ‘neue Taktik’”, in: SD, No. 28, July 11, and No. 29, July 18, 1880.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 1} For the Social Democratic amendments, see Sten. Ber., IV. Leg., Session 4 (1881), vol. IV (Anlagen), Doc. 201, pp. 1050–52.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} Sten. Ber., IV. Leg., Session 4 (1881), vol. I, pp. 746, 748, 755.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 1} Sten. Ber., IV. Leg., Session 4 (1881), vol. II, p. 1455.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 2} Sten. Ber., IV. Leg., Session 4 (1881), vol. II, pp. 1757–58.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 3} Sten. Bet., IV. Leg., Session 4 (1881), vol. II, pp. 1517, 1529.Google Scholar

^{page 213 note 4} Sten. Ber., V. Leg., Session 2 (1882/1883), vol. I p. 156.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 1} Sten. Ber., V. Leg., Session 2 (1882/1883), vol. I p. 157.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 2} Sten. Ber., V. Leg., Session 2 (1882/1883), vol. I. Pp. 158–59.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 3} Engels, Friedrich to Bebel, August, May 16, 1882, in: Friedrich Engels, Briefe an Bebel (Berlin-East, 1958), p. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 4} Ibid., p. 62.

^{page 214 note 5} Leo, [pseudonym for Bernstein], “Manchesterthum, Sozialdemokratie und ‘soziale Reform’”, in: SD, No. 49, 12 1, 1881.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 1} Leo, , “Staatshülfe!?”, in: SD, No. 2, 01 9, 1881.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 2} Symmachos, [a Kautsky pseudonym], “Der Staatssozialismus und die Sozialdemokratie”, in: SD, No. 10, 03 6, 1881.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 3} Leo, , “Staatssozialismus und Klassenstaat”, in: SD, No. 41, 10 6, 1881.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 4} Bloos, Wilhelm, Denkwürdigkeiten eines Sozialdemokraten (Munich, 1919), II, p. 48.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 5} The Social Democrats naturally did not publish any account of the secret meeting at Zurich. However, a copy of handwritten abbreviated minutes, cited here as the Handwritten Minutes of the Zurich Conference, (August 19–22, 1882) is preserved in the Motteler Archive, International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam (hereafter abbreviated as IISH); Bernstein's comments on p. 2. A partial resumé of these minutes can be found in Kampffmeyer, Paul, Unter dem Sozialistengesetz (Berlin, 1928), pp. 211–15.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 6} Ibid., p. 2.

^{page 216 note 1} Ibid., p. 3.

^{page 216 note 2} Bernstein, to Engels, , Sept. 1, 1882Google Scholar, Marx/Engels Archive, IISH.

^{page 216 note 3} Bernstein, to Engels, , Sept. 15, 1882Google Scholar, Marx/Engels Archive, IISH.

^{page 216 note 4} Engels, to Bernstein, , Sept. 13, 1882, in: Friedrich Engels, Die Briefe von Friedrich Engels an Eduard Bernstein. Mit Briefen von Karl Kautsky an Ebendenselben, ed. Bernstein, Eduard (Berlin, 1925), pp. 78–79.Google Scholar

^{page 216 note 5} Engels to Bernstein, Feb. 8, 1883, in: ibid., p. 109. Nearly three years earlier Engels had published in French a short analysis of Bismarck's socialism, limited to a discussion of the protective tariff and the Imperial Railroad Monopoly. The article, in two parts, did not appear in German. “Le Socialisme de M. Bismarck”, in: l'Égalité, March 2, 1880, p. 6Google Scholar; and March 24, 1880, p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 1} Sten. Ber., V. Leg., Session 1 (1881/1882), vol. I, p. 503.Google Scholar

^{page 217 note 2} Bebel to Comrades in New York, Oct. 9, 1882, quoted in Gemkow, Heinrich, Friedrich Engels' Hilfe beim Sieg der deutschen Sozialdemokratie über das Sozialistengesetz (Berlin-East, 1957), p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 1} Höchberg, Katl to Bernstein, , June 8, 1884Google Scholar, Bernstein Archive, IISH.

^{page 218 note 2} Höchberg, Karl to Bernstein, , June 21, 1884, Bernstein Archive, IISH.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 3} Höchberg, Karl to Bernstein, , Oct. 28, 1884, Bernstein Archive, IISH.Google Scholar

^{page 218 note 4} Protokoll über den Kongress der deutschen Sozialdemokratie in Kopenhagen (Hottingen-Zurich, 1883), pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 1} Bebel, to Engels, , May 2, 1883Google Scholar, Marx/Engels Archive, IISH. The sections cited here from this letter were omitted when it was printed in the third volume of Bebel's memoirs, Aus meinem Leben, published posthumously. Karl Kautsky edited this last volume, although Bebel had prepared the material. It was apparently in the best interest of the party in those years before World War I not to spell out fully how far to the right some members of the party leaned even during the years of the heroic struggle against Bismarck's Socialist Law.

^{page 219 note 2} The Social Democratic amendments are in Sten. Ber., V. Leg., Session 2 (1882/1883), vol. VI(Anlagen), Doc. 251, pp. 950–54.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 3} Sten. Ber., V. Leg., Session 2 (1882/1883), vol. III, p. 1995.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 4} Sten. Ber., V. Leg., Session 4 (1884), vol. IV, p. 2469.Google Scholar

^{page 219 note 5} Sten. Ber., V. Leg., Session 4 (1884), vol. 1, p. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 1} Sten. Ber., V. Leg., Session 4 (1884), vol. II, pp. 1112–13.Google Scholar

^{page 220 note 2} Cf. the following in Der Sozialdemokrat: “Die Impotenz des Klassenstaates”, (n.s.), No. 2, Jan. 5, 1882Google Scholar; “Das Märchen vom ‘sozialen Koenigthum’”, (n.s.), No. 10, March 1, 1883Google Scholar; Leo, , “Der Sozialismus und der Staat”, No. 52, Dec. 20, 1883Google Scholar; “Klassengesetzgebung”, (n.s.), No. 20, May 10, 1883; “Klassenkampf und soziale Reform”, (n.s.), No. 30, July 24, 1884Google Scholar.

^{page 220 note 3} Wagner, Adolf (ed.), Briefe von Ferdinand Lassalle an Carl Rodbertus-Jagetzow (Berlin, 1878)Google Scholar; DrRodbertus-Jagetzow, , Briefe und socialpolitische Aufsätze, ed. Meyer, Rudolf (Berlin, n.d. but 1882).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 1} Michels, Robert, “Rodbertus und sein Kreis”, in: Carl Rodbertus-Jagetzow, Neue Briefe über Grundrente, Rentenprinzip und Soziale Frage an Schumacher, eds. Michels, Robert and Ackermann, Ernst (Karlsruhe, 1926), p. 48.Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 2} The new Rodbertus literature in the eighties included a variety of studies, directed almost exclusively to the idea that Rodbertus was a significant, but much overlooked, founder of socialist thought. See Wirth, Moritz, Bismarck, Wagner, Rodbertus, drei deutsche Meister (Leipzig, 1883)Google Scholar. In the later eighties Wirth worked with Adolf Wagner to edit unpublished writings of Rodbertus. Another of these intellectuals, Georg Adler, set Rodbertus up as the founder of “scientific socialism”, without even mentioning Marx. See Adler, Georg, Rodbertus, der Begründer des Wissenschaftlichen Sozialismus (Leipzig, 1884)Google Scholar. In the following year he wrote Die Geschichte der ersten sozialpolitischen Arbeiterbewegung in Deutschknd, which was critical of Marxism. As a Professor of Political Economy at Freiburg im Breisgau, Adler later wrote extensively on social problems and the history of the socialist movement. Max Quarck wrote for Die Neue Zeit in the eighties under the pseudonym Freiwald Thüringer; he remained in the Social Democratic Party, but always on the right-wing. Conrad Schmidt, attracted by Rodbertus in the mid-eighties, was drawn close to Engels toward the end of the decade, but later became a leader of the reformist wing of Social Democracy as editor of the Sozialistische Monatshefte. Hermann Bahr, later to become an Austrian writer of considerable popularity, studied economics under Adolf Wagner at the University of Berlin. At the time he wrote a short study in line with the Rodbertus tendency, Rodbertus, ' Theorie der Absatzkrisen (Vienna, 1884)Google Scholar, and published a lecture entitled Rodbertus, Ueber (Vienna, 1884).Google Scholar Although Bahr continued to have contacts with Social Democrats, he was not himself a commited party member. In addition to the above studies, several others also appeared on Rodbertus: Kozak, Theophil, Rodbertus-Jagetzows sozial-ökonomische Ansichten (Jena, 1882)Google Scholar; and Dietzel, H., Rodbertus, Karl. Darstellung seines Lebens und seiner Lehre (2 vols.; Jena, 1886, 1888).Google Scholar

^{page 221 note 3} Cf. Kautsky, , Erinnerungen und Erörterungen, pp. 443–44Google Scholar; Bernstein, , Sozialdemokratische Lehrjahre, pp. 56–57.Google Scholar

^{page 222 note 1} Bahr, Hermann, Selbstbildnis (Berlin, 1923), pp. 171–72, 176, 187–89.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 1} Rodbertus-Jagetzow, Carl, Das Kapital, Vierter sozialer Brief an von Kirchmann, ed. Kozak, Theophil (2nd ed., Berlin, 1913) p. xiiGoogle Scholar, from “Einleitung” to 1st edition of 1884.

^{page 223 note 2} Kautsky, to Engels, , Feb. 14, 1884, in: Kautsky, Benedikt (ed.), Friedrich Engels' Briefwechsel mit Karl Kautsky (Vienna, 1955), p. 98.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 3} Kautsky to Engels, May 29, 1884, in: ibid., p. 118.

^{page 223 note 4} Engels to Kautsky, Feb. 16, 1884, ibid., pp. 100–01; Kautsky to Engels, June 23, 1884, ibid., p. 124; Engels to Kautsky, June 26, 1884, ibid., pp. 126–28; Kautsky to Engels, June 26, 1884, ibid., pp. 128–29; Kautsky to Engels, July 7, 1884, ibid., p. 130; Engels to Kautsky, July 11, 1884, ibid., p. 132; Kautsky to Engels, July 16, 1884, ibid., p. 134; Engels to Kautsky, August 1, 1884, ibid., p. 139; Engels to Kautsky, August 22, 1884, ibid., p. 141; Kautsky to Engels, Sept. 17, 1884, ibid., p. 143; Engels to Kautsky, Sept. 20, 1884, ibid., pp. 144–45; Kautsky to Engels, Oct. 11, 1884, ibid., pp. 146–47; Engels to Kautsky, Oct. 15, 1884, ibid., p. 148; Kautsky to Engels, Oct. 22, 1884, ibid., p. 153.

^{page 223 note 5} Kautsky, Karl, “Das ‘Kapital’ von Rodbertus”, in: Die Neue Zeit, II (1884), pp. 357–50, 385–402 (hereafter as N.Z.).Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 6} , C. A. S., “K. Kautsky und Rodbertus”, in: N.Z., II (1884), pp. 481–93Google Scholar, and an immediate rejoinder by Kautsky, , “Eine Replik”, pp. 494–505.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} Kautsky, Karl, “Schlusswort”, in: N. Z., III (1885), pp. 224–32Google Scholar; Kautsky, Karl, “Aus dem Nachlass von Rodbertus”, in: N. Z., IV (1886), pp. 258–63Google Scholar. “Materialistische Geschichtsauffassung”, (n. s.), in: SD, No. 7, Feb. 12, 1886Google Scholar; “Staatssozialismus”, (by “s”), in: S.D., No. 12, March 18, 1886Google Scholar; “Eine ‘wissenschaftliche Kritik’ des Marx'schen Systems”, (n. s.), in: SD, No. 7, Feb. 11, and No. 8, Feb. 18, 1887Google Scholar (review of a work by Georg Adler).

^{page 224 note 2} Kautsky, Karl to Engels, , Dec. 2, 1884, in: Friedrich Engels' Briefwechsel mit Karl Kautsky, p. 158.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 3} Schramm, Carl A. to Schlüter, Hermann (business director for the Sozialdemokrat), May 9, 1885Google Scholar, in Schlüter Archive, IISH; Hermann Schluter wrote to Karl Kautsky that he had never read such a “masterpiece of perfidy” as Schramm's booklet. May 16, 1885, in Kautsky Archive, IISH.

^{page 224 note 4} Schramm, C. A., Rodbertus, Marx, Lassalle. Sozialwissenschaftliche Studie (Munich, [1885]), pp. 66, 79, 83.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 5} Ibid., p. 75.

^{page 224 note 6} With the publication of Schramm's booklet, Bernstein issued an extensive denunciation in serial form: “Ein moralischer Kritiker und seine kritische Moral”, (n. s.), in: SD, No. 4, Jan. 21; No. 5, Jan. 28; No. 6, Feb. 5; and No. 7, Feb. 12, 1886. In reply, Schramm complained bitterly that a “clique” in the party no longer represented the program but blindly “believes in the possibility of achieving the goal of the movement through a violent revolution…” “Polemik”, in: SD, No. 9, Feb. 26, 1886Google Scholar.

^{page 224 note 7} Engels, to Lafargue, Laura, Nov. 2, 1886, in: Frederick Engels, Paul and Laura Lafargue, Correspondence (Moscow, 1959), I, p. 394.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} For von Vollmar's role in the new debate on State Socialism, see Jansen, , pp. 44ff.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 2} The literature on reformism in the nineties is considerable. Cf. Gay, passim; Landauer, , I, pp. 298ff.Google Scholar; Mayer, , II, pp. 477ff.Google Scholar; Schorske, Carl, German Social Democracy, 1905–1917. The Development of the Great Schism (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), pp. 7ff.Google Scholar; Marks, Harry J., “The Sources of Reformism in the Social Democratic Party of Germany, 1890–1914”, in: Journal of Modern History, XI (09, 1939), pp. 334–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar