Lassalleanism

Also known as “Lassallism”. Lassalleanism was an opportunistic ideology in the German workers’ movement during the 1860–1870s. Lassalleanism was the product of the reactionary policies of the Prussian Junker aristocracy and bourgeoisie, and represented a reflection of the intense contradictions between the German proletariat and the landowning bourgeoisie at that time. Its chief representatives were Ferdinand Lassalle and his faithful followers, Becker, von Schweitzer, Hasenclever, and Hasselmann among others.

The main ideological elements of Lassalleanism are as follows: In terms of philosophical foundations, Lassalleanism belonged to the older Hegelian idealists, especially manifesting itself as historical idealism. Politically, Lassalleanism opposed the proletarian revolution and defended the bourgeoisie. Lassalle proposed that it was a great mistake to hate factory owners or entrepreneurs because the present system was the result of a long historical process which did not occur because of the sins of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie itself was but the involuntary outgrowth of this situation, and therefore hatred and aversion to the bourgeoisie may be motivated only by gross misunderstandings. The elimination of such misunderstandings can only take place peacefully, through the initiative of the intellectuals, and with the sympathy and assistance of the proletariat. Economically, Lassalleanism disseminated the so-called “iron law of wages”, whose basic content is that the average wages of the workers of a country always rested on the necessary standard of living that the people of that country are accustomed to demand for their subsistence and the upbringing of their descendants. If the real wages of workers were permanently higher than their average wages, then their lives would improve markedly, which necessarily stimulated population growth, resulting in an increase in the labor force, which in turn would drive wages down below the average wage level; conversely, if the real wages of workers were permanently lower than the average wage level, then their living conditions would deteriorate, and they would be forced to have fewer children, resulting in a tighter supply of labor, which will drive wages up above the average wage level. As a result, workers would always be paid only a wage that maintained a minimum standard of living. As a result, workers will always be paid the minimum wage and thus will have the lowest living standard. Lassalleanism held that the poverty of the proletariat in capitalist society was not caused by wage labor, but by population, in particular, it was determined by the natural reproduction conditions of the working population. In terms of class relations, Lassalleanism advocated class collaboration and opposed class struggle. In the conception of state, if the proletariat wants to break away from the domination of the “iron law of wages”, it must establish production co-operatives so that the workers can become the masters of their own enterprises. The establishment, management and development of the production co-operatives must be assisted by the state. Lassalleanism was opportunism that stood on the standpoint of the capitalists and served the bourgeoisie, and later became an important ideological source of the Second International’s revisionism.

Marx and Engels carried out an in-depth exposure and critique of Lassalleanism. Marx fought face-to-face with Lassalle on two separate occasions in July 1862 and at the end of the same year on the question of the line of the German workers' movement, and broke with him at the beginning of 1863. Marx pointed out: “(1) On account of his bombastic self-adulation, which he managed to combine with the most shameless plagiarism of writings by myself and others; (2) Because I condemned his political tactics; (3) Because, even before he began his agitation, I had fully explained and ‘proved’ to him here in London that direct socialist intervention by a ‘Prussian state’ was an absurdity. In his letters to me (from 1848 to 1863), as well as when we met personally, he had always declared himself a supporter of the party I represent. As soon as he had become convinced in London (at the end of 1862) that he could not play his game with me, he resolved to set himself up as ‘workers’ dictator’ against me and the old party.” Marx and Engels have exposed and criticized the essence of Lassalle’s opportunistic line. Engels pointed out that “Lassalle’s entire socialism consisted in abusing the capitalists and flattering the Prussian rural squires”, and that “Lassalle had big ideas about Bismarck’s fitness to introduce the socialist Millennium.” Engels also pointed out that in Germany at that time, when the working class did not even have the basic democratic rights such as freedom of assembly, association, speech and publication, the demand for “direct universal suffrage which Lassalle advocated was not a weapon but a trap for the proletariat”. In his letter to von Schweitzer on October 13, 1868, Marx pointed out that Lassalle “gave his agitation, from the very start, a religious, sectarian character. In fact, every sect is religious. And just because he was the founder of a sect, he denied all natural connection with the earlier movement, both in Germany and abroad”. In his letter, Marx clearly criticized the two-faced nature of the sectarian activities of von Schweitzer, the heir to Lassalleanism, under the guise of a class movement, pointing out that “you, in fact, demanded that the class movement subordinate itself to a particular sect movement.”