1880. J on Social Democracy in Germany. 421 



cracy introduced, wlicrc the Govcriiincnt is more or less confined to 

 l)olice duties, will not lind a largo scope for its powers of doing mis- 

 chief, but, where it succeeds to a paternal Government, it is ai)t to 

 assume parental authority on a dangerous scale, forgetting that it is 

 the parent of children, a good number of whom are wiser than itself. 

 Communities tending to democracy should therefore be extremely 

 careful with what duties they charge the State. The smaller the 

 inheritance, in this case, the less " damnosa " it will prove in tho 

 future. The great difficulty in making laws is to prevent these laws 

 from going beyond their intended object. 



The (questions of Sieyes — What is the middle class ? Nothing ; 

 What should it bo? Everything; — are exaggerations, but certainly in 

 a less dangerous direction than Lassalle's advice given in these words: 

 " Take, friends, this pledge : if ever it comes to a struggle between 

 the monarchy by divine right on the one side, and this miserable 

 middle class on the other, then take your oath, that you will stand 

 on the side of monarchy against the middle class. . . . from my youth 

 I have been a republican, and notwithstanding, or perhaps exactly on 

 that account, I have come to the conclusion, that nothing can have a 

 greater future and a more blissful influence than royalty, if it can 

 only decide to become ' Sociales Konigthum.' " Bismarck said of 

 Lassalle, of whom he had a very high opinion : " Whether the German 

 empire would exactly culminate in the dynasty of Hohenzollern or in 

 that of Lassalle was probably doubtful, but Lassalle's tendencies were 

 certainly monarchical." 



Napoleon expressed the idea very forcibly : " Given a triangle," 

 he said ; " one side represents the Church, the second side the army, 

 the tliird side the people, and in the centre you have the middle 

 class well fenced in." 



In Germany the whole political system has been so framed as to 

 check political independence and vigour, either in the higher or 

 in the middle class. The ruling power in Germany is an exceedingly 

 well-trained, highly organised bureaucracy (hureaucratismus). Self- 

 government is hardly in its infancy; everything is done for the 

 people. Bureaucratic initiative supersedes all parliamentary initia- 

 tive. The socialists naturally, therefore, wish to lay hold of this 

 bureaucracy ; they must take possession for their own purposes of the 

 existing machinery. Instead of increasing the power of Parliament, 

 the extreme parties on either side in Germany weaken its control : 

 the executive by its demands of arbitrary power, the social democrats 

 by their dislike to joint action with the liberal party. Meanwhile the 

 increase of activity of the Government, its assumption of more respon- 

 sibility — as in the management of railways — constitutes a concession 

 to the principles of social democracy and stimulates the revolutionary 

 appetites. Of this " socialisme d'etat " there are symptoms in France, 

 where bills have been introduced by private members securing to the 

 working classes either a pension at the close of life or a small capital 

 to start with. Instead of abandoning protection and reducing all 



