Welchen Platz nimmt die Bibliographic der Arbeiterbewegung und des Sozialismus heute ein und wie füllt sie ihn aus? Der beträchtliche Aufschwung, den in den letzten 15 Jahren die Historiographie auf diesem Gebiet erfahren hat, fand seinen Ausdruck auch in erheblich vermehrter bibliographischer Tätigkeit. Die Zahl der in den letzten 10 bis 15 Jahren veröffentlichten Bibliographien ist bedeutend höher als die der im vorhergegangenen halben Jahrhundert gedruckten. Der Historiker der Arbeiterbewegung, wie übrigens auch manche seiner Kollegen anderer Spezialgebiete, benutzt häufig die ihm von den Hilfs-wissenschaften zur Verfügung gestellten Arbeitsinstrumente, insbesondere Bibliographien, ohne die ihrer Herstellung eigenen Bedingungen und Probleme näher zu kennen. Dies mangelnde Verständnis ist der Forschung im allgemeinen abträglich und führt, wie wir weiterhin sehen werden, zu Kraftvergeudung. In einzelnen Fällen kann man sich des Eindrucks nicht erwehren, die Geschichtsschreibung sei der Bibliographie vorausgeeilt, die unumgängliche bibliographische Vorbereitung der Arbeit durch den Historiker sei unzulänglich gewesen oder jedenfalls nicht von dem dazu berufenen Spezialisten durchgeführt worden. Die eigentliche Ursache solcher Erscheinungen ist weniger in Uebereilung des Historikers oder im Zurückbleiben des Bibliographen zu suchen, sondern vielmehr in mangelnder Koordination beider Tätigkeiten und infolgedessen ungenügend formulierten Ansprüchen an die Qualität der von der Hilfswissenschaft geforderten Arbeit. Auf die Frage der Koordination werden wir noch zurückkommen. Wenden wir uns zuerst, ohne jegliche polemische Absicht, einigen Fragen zu, die uns für den Bibliographen wesentlich zu sein scheinen. 1. Die Isolierung der Bibliographen fährt zu einer bedeutenden Kraft-verschwendung. Gar nicht selten unternehmen zwei oder mehr Forscher ungewusst und unabhängig voneinander eine gleiche Arbeit.

This paper was written before the appearance of Leslie Derfler's “Reformism and Jules Guesde: 1891–1904” (International Review of Social History, XII (1967), pp. 66–80). It is not specifically aimed at answering or refuting Derfler's article; however, it adds to his discussion of French reformism and Jules Guesde. Derfler and I agree that an analysis of Socialist theory is of secondary importance for the historian trying to unravel the complexities of French Socialism; for “doctrinal discord” Derfler substitutes “personal enmity” as the key to understanding. I believe that investigation of Socialist organization in France will provide added insights into the reformist and revolutionary movements within French Socialism.

Im Januar 1895 war der Geschäitsführer des Verlags „Buchhandlung Vorwärts”, Richard Fischer, „beim Durchblättern alter Zeitungen” auf Marxens Artikel „Die Juniniederlage 1848”, „Der 13. Juni 1849” und „Folgen des 13. Juni 1849” gestoβen, welche 1850 in den ersten drei Heften der Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung. Politisch-ökonomische Revue erschienen waren. Am 30. des Monats bat er Engels in einem Brief um dessen Zustimmung zur Herausgabe der völlig unbekannten Marxschen Arbeit in Form einer Broschüre. Gleichzeitig ersuchte er ihn, eine Einleitung dazu zu verfassen. Da Fischer die Schrift spätestens im März herausbringen wollte – er hielt Engels vor Augen, daβ nach einer möglichen Annahme der Umsturzvorlage das Erscheinen der Marxschen Arbeit in Frage gestellt sei –, drängte er auf eine umgehende definitive Antwort. Engels monierte zwar am 2. Februar die Art und Weise, in der er zeitlich unter Druck gesetzt würde, stimmte aber dem Plan Fischers zu und versprach, die gewünschte Einleitung in Angriff zu nehmen. Darüber hinaus erweiterte er die Marxschen Artikel um jene Abschnitte aus der „Revue” des fünften und sechsten Heftes der Neuen Rheinischen Zeitung, die die Ereignisse in Frankreich behandelten. Aus drei Vorschlägen, die Engels machte, wählte Fischer den Titel „Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850”.

The potato blight which in the 1840s became so destructive in Ireland as to cause wide-spread distress and much loss of life also brought the Netherlands to the verge of famine. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the extent of the damage to the Dutch potato crops in the “hungry forties” and to consider some of its consequences: the rise of the food prices, the spread of pauperism, social unrest, the attitudes of the population and the measures taken by the Government.

Any historian who deals with a period in which conspirators played a significant role sooner or later comes up against the conspirator's twin brother, the undercover police agent. In most cases, the policeman revolutionary or revolutionary policeman, however fascinating as an entrée into the twilight world of double and triple agents, offers more to the enterprising journalist than to the historian. Even some of the more spectacular exemplars of real or reputed undercover agents – Roman Malinovsky, who rose to membership in the central committee of the Bolshevik party before 1917; Lucien Delahodde, who until his exposure was a leading light in the secret societies of the July Monarchy; Auguste Blanqui, the unquenchable revolutionary who may or may not have informed on his comrades in 1839 – did not really affect the general course of history, at least not as informers. Though Malinovsky as a psychological phenomenon cries out for a latter-day Dostoevsky, his amazing career did not in any way deflect the Bolsheviks from their goal. Delahodde's more businesslike relations with the Orleanist police sapped an underground republican movement which was already impotent and discredited before he joined it. In Blanqui's case, the question of guilt or innocence is almost irrelevant, though the accusation of treason which the journalist Taschereau levelled in March 1848 did foil Blanqui's efforts to lead the left-wing opposition to the Provisional Government.

In his book Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution Thorstein Veblen argued that the relative lateness of the advent of German industrialization permitted her to avoid “the penalty of taking the lead”. She could borrow on a massive scale from the accumulated knowledge and technology of already industrialized societies. While this judgment may hold true on the purely technological level, it is not true that German society made the transition from the basically agrarian-commercial society of the mid-nineteenth century to the predominantly industrial society of the twentieth century without penalties. In recent years specialists on the developing nations have directed our attention to the dislocation, hardships, and complexity which the processes of industrialisation, urbanization, and modernization are introducing into traditional societies. In our scholarly concern for the problems of development in the non-Western world, we have, until quite recently, tended to forget that large segments of the populations of European societies had to be “dragged kicking and screaming into the twentieth century”, to use Adlai Stevenson's telling phrase. In the case of Germany around 1900 only part of the nation was brought into the new era while another sizeable portion of the population, to Germany's later misfortune, was aided by the Imperial Establishment in its efforts to build a protective wall around itself to keep out the new machine age. I shall argue that the strongest part of that wall was erected in the years between 1894 and 1902, between the fall of Caprivi and the passage of the protective tariff of 1902. In these years German society endured an economic and intellectual crisis which extended beyond merely the selfish attempts of the East Elbian Junkers to maintain their economic and political position. Peasant proprietors were deeply involved. Artisans were affected. And even the leading theoreticians of the Social Democratic party stood confused before the crisis.

Im Januar 1909 erschienen im Verlag der Buchhandlung Vorwärts die ersten Exemplare von Karl Kautskys Schrift “Der Weg zur Macht”.1 Kurz darauf verbot der Parteivorstand den weiteren Druck und die Verbreitung der Broschüre. Dieser Einspruch gab die Initialzündung für eine der Form wie der Sache nach äuβerst scharfe Auseinandersetzung zwischen dem Verfasser und dem Vorstand, in die sich auch die von Kautsky zur Vermittlung angerufene Kontrollkommission und zahlreiche führende Vertreter der Parteispitze einschalteten. Da sich der Streit um die Broschüre unter Ausschluβ der Parteiöffentlichkeit abspielte, ist der Ablauf der Kontroverse weitgehend im Dunkeln geblieben. Durch die Veröffentlichung des Adler-Briefwechsels sind erstmals Einzelheiten über diese Vorgange bekannt geworden.

Social historians studying nineteenth-century England tend to concentrate on the work-situation, and therefore on the conflicting interests of employer and employee. Dr John Vincent, however, has recently directed attention to the popular basis of nineteenth-century Liberalism; this brings into the forefront quite different social alignments – especially when conflicts over religion and recreation are investigated. Popular radicalism “was the product of the leisure of Saturday night and Sunday morning, the pothouse and the chapel, not of the working week”. This shift in interest brings the drink question to the fore, as several scholars have already realised: “it would be hard to say why historians have not rated the effect of strong drink as the significant factor in nineteenth-century history that it undoubtedly was”, wrote Dr Kitson Clark recently; “its importance stands out from every page of the contemporary record”. W. L. Burn thought it “arguable” that the Beer Act of 1830 was “more revolutionary in its immediate social consequences than any other of the reforming age”.

A subtitle of this essay could conceivably read, “a subject in search of a biographer”. It examines the motives of Jules Guesde, who introduced and organized Marxism in France, in shifting from revolutionary to reformist, and back to a revolutionary position. In charting these movements I have applied some new evidence, that found in recently available police archives, to an old problem.

At the very beginning of the investigation, it is necessary to find a word to describe the European masses before the coming of the twin revolutions, the French and Industrial, that have contributed so much to the making of the modern world. “Proletariat” is clearly anachronistic; “wage-earners” is inadequate in a society where cash wages were far from being the most common form of payment for labor. “Working class” is too much identified with nineteenth century developments and, what is worse, conjures up an image of a homogeneous group that does not conform to eighteenth century realities. “Laboring poor” is by far the best, for it emphasizes two primary facts about the people with whom we are concerned: first, that, to one extent or another, they earned their living by doing manual labor, and, second, that they were being continuously impoverished, as Professor Labrousse has shown. The category has several virtues as a tool of historical analysis. It is large enough to take account of the complexities of eighteenth century social conditions, stressing the mobility and social intercourse that existed, albeit on a diminishing scale, between the master artisans and shopkeepers, their apprentices and journeymen on the one hand, and the domestics, beggars, criminals and floating elements in the population, on the other. Classes laborieuses and classes dangereuses lived side by side and recruited their personnel from one another. They did in fact form a whole, whom contemporaries called “les classes inférieures”. If we look toward the future, we see that the French Revolution Was to bring about a temporary split in their ranks by politicizing those among them who became the sans-culottes, and that the Industrial Revolution was to complete this division on other bases by allowing some of the laboring poor to become petty capitalists, While forcing the majority to become proletarians or to fall further still into the nether world of the lumpen-proletariat. In sum, the use of the concept of the laboring poor enables us to come close to the reality of eighteenth century paris and to watch the disagregation of that reality with the passage of time.

Although the International Workingmen's Association is often called the Marxian International, it was at no time safely under the control of Karl Marx. The spirit of Marx, however, was the strongest single influence in the organization from its beginning, and from 1868, when the Proudhonians had suffered defeat at the Brussels Congress, to 1872, when Bakunin's opposition proved too strong to be overcome, Marx possessed more power in the organization than anyone else. Yet this power collapsed in 1872: Although formally Marx was the victor at the Hague Congress, actually in the conflict with Bakunin it became evident that Marx's position was disintegrating. What were the reasons?

Der Aufsatz „Luther als Schiedsrichter zwischen Strauss und Feuerbach” erschien im zweiten Band der von Arnold Ruge 1843 in der Schweiz herausgegebenen „Anekdota zur neuesten deutschen Philosophie und Publizistik”, Seite 206–208, und war gezeichnet mit „Kein Berliner”. Rjazanov druckt ihn in der MEGA, I,1,1, S. 174–175, ab mit der Bemerkung, die Autorschaft von Marx sei „als sicher anzunehmen”. Von der MEGA übernehmen den Aufsatz unter anderen die im Dietz-Verlag erscheinende Ausgabe „Marx-Engels-Werke” und die von H. J. Lieber veranstaltete „Karl-Marx-Ausgabe” in der Wissenschaftlichen Buchgesellschaft. Die von Hermann Becker 1851 herausgegebenen „Gesammelten Aufsätze von Karl Marx” und die von Franz Mehring veranstaltete Ausgabe „Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von K. Marx, Fr. Engels und F. Lassalle” enthalten den Aufsatz nicht.