1. Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, The Communist Manifesto (New York, 1970), p. 42.Google Scholar

2. See, e.g., Matthias, Erich, “Kautsky und der Kautskyanismus,” Marxismusstudien 2 (1957): 197Google Scholar; Nettl, Peter, “The German Social Democratic Party 1890–1914 as a Political Model,” Past and Present, no. 30 (1965), p. 81Google Scholar; Gay, Peter, The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism (New York, 1962), p. 301Google Scholar; Roth, Guenther, The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany (Totowa, N.J., 1963), pp. 315–16Google Scholar; Groh, Dieter, Negative Integration und revolutionärer Attentismus (Frankfurt, 1973), p. 36Google Scholar; Michels, Robert, Political Parties (New York, 1962), pp. 337–41Google Scholar; Craig, Gordon A., Germany 1866–1945 (New York, 1978), pp. 268–69Google Scholar; Mommsen, Hans, Die Sozialdemokratie und die Nationalitätenfrage im Habsburgischen Viel-völkerstaat, 1 (Vienna, 1963): 6Google Scholar; Taylor, A. J. P., The Habsburg Monarchy 1809–1918 (New York, 1965), pp. 178–79Google Scholar; Knapp, Vincent J., Austrian Social Democracy (Washington, D.C., 1980), p. ixGoogle Scholar; Kitchen, Martin, The Coming of Austrian Fascism (Montreal, 1980), pp. 8–10.Google Scholar

3. A notable exception is Miller, Susanne, Das Problem der Freiheit im Sozialismus (Frankfurt, 1964), pp. 227–58.Google Scholar

4. While recognizing with Bronislaw Baczko that “utopia is a notoriously ambiguous concept,” I tend to agree with Frank and Fritzie Manuel that it is a mistake to try too hard “to dispel the fog polluting utopia's natural environment.” Baczko, Bronislaw, “The Shifting Frontiers of Utopia,” Journal of Modern History 53 (1981): 469CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Manuel, Frank E. and Manuel, Fritzie P., Utopian Thought in the Western World (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), p. 5.Google Scholar I have therefore limited myself to an admittedly general and somewhat imprecise definition of the term in preparing this article, i.e., I have considered any point of view utopian which projects the creation of a fundamentally different and radically improved society in the clearly foreseeable future.

5. Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands (hereafter cited as Prot. SPD), 1909, p. 340. Of course, he was arguing that the party needed now to emphasize its work on immediate practical problems. For other views from the right wing of the German party, see Laufkötter's, Franz complaints about the persistence of “childish” Utopian ideas in “Utopistische Ideen im modernen Sozialismus,” Sozialistische Monatshefte 14, pt. 3 (1908): 1340–45Google Scholar, and Heine's, Wolfgang more positive appraisal in “Utopien,” Sozialistische Monatshefte 9, pt. 2 (1903): 649–57.Google Scholar

6. Braunthal, Julius, In Search of the Millennium (London, 1945), p. 5Google Scholar. For a similar statement by a German worker, see Dikreiter, Heinrich Paul, “Die Idee des Zukunfts-staats,” in Emmerich, Wolfgang, ed., Proletarische Lebensläufe: Autobiographische Doku-mente zur Entstehung derzweiten Kulturin Deutschland, 2 vols. (Hamburg, 1974–1975), 1:286.Google Scholar

7. The edition cited throughout this article is the fiftieth. Bebel, August, Die Frau und der Sozialismus (Stuttgart, 1910).Google Scholar

8. Keil, Wilhelm, Erlebnisse eines Sozialdemokraten, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1947–1948), 1:104Google Scholar; Renner, Karl, “Bebel's ‘Frau,’” Der Kampf 3 (1909–1910): 100Google Scholar; Danneberg, Robert, review of Bebel's Die Frau und der Sozialismus, Bildungsarbeit 1, no. 4 (01 1910): 4Google Scholar; Lange-wiesche, Dieter and Schönhoven, Klaus, “Arbeiterbibliotheken und Arbeiterlektüre im Wilhelminischen Deutschland,” Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 16 (1976): 195Google Scholar; Schwarte, Norbert, Schulpolitik und Pädagogik der deutschen Sozialdemokratie an der Wende vom 19. zum 20. Jahr-hundert (Cologne, 1980), pp. 162–70.Google Scholar For an assessment of its importance to the feminist movement, see Quataert, Jean H., Reluctant Feminists in German Social Democracy, 1885–1917 (Princeton, 1979), pp. 7, 59–60, 69, 85, 236.Google Scholar

9. Engels, Friedrich to Becker, Johann Philipp, 10 15, 1886Google Scholar, in “Ein Brief über Bebel und Marx,” Der Kampf 6 (1912–1913): 533–34.Google Scholar

10. Renner, Karl, “Zu August Bebels Heimgang,” Der Kampf 6 (1912–1913): 530.Google Scholar

11. Renner, “Bebel's ‘Frau,’” p. 98.

12. J. S. and E. F., “Was Lesen die organisierten Arbeiter in Deutschland?” Die Neue Zeit (hereafter cited as NZ) 13, pt. 1 (1894–1895): 154–55Google Scholar; Advocates (Vogt, Paul), “Was liest der deutsche Arbeiter?” NZ 13, pt. 2 (1894–1895): 817Google Scholar; Advocatus, , “Ein weiterer Beitrag zur Frage: ‘Was liest der deutsche Arbeiter?’” NZ 14, pt. 1 (1895–1896): 633Google Scholar; J. G., “Was lesen die Wiener Arbeiter?” NZ 17, pt. 2 (1898–1899): 90Google Scholar; Haenisch, Konrad, “Was lesen die Arbeiter?” NZ 18, pt. 2 (1899–1900): 693–94Google Scholar; A. P., review of Bebel's Die Frau und der Sozialismus, Der Bibliothekar 2 (1910): 96Google Scholar; Kliche, Josef, “Arbeiterlektüre,” Sozialistische Monatshefte 17, pt. 1 (1911): 318Google Scholar; Langewiesche and Schönhoven, p. 195; Steinberg, Hans-Josef, Sozialismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie (Berlin, 1976), p. 138Google Scholar; Krug, Peter, Gewerkschaften und Arbeiterbildung (Göttingen, 1978), p. 265Google Scholar. Concerning its significance, see also Gilg, Peter, Die Erneurung des demokratischen Denkens im Wilhel-minischen Deutschland (Wiesbaden, 1965), pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

13. For a discussion of the origins and evolution of Die Frau, see Maehl, William Harvey, August Bebel: Shadow Emperor of the German Workers (Philadelphia, 1980), pp. 123–25.Google Scholar

14. Bebel, Die Frau, p. 371.

15. Ibid., p. 379.

16. Henry de Man uses Bebel as his primary example in arguing that “self-taught men” frequently tend to overvalue science. de Man, Henry, The Psychology of Socialism, trans. Eden, and Paul, Cedar (London, 1928), p. 177.Google Scholar

17. Bebel, Die Frau, pp. 380–97, 411–13. The problems and possibilities involved in applying modern technology in a socialist society were clearly of great interest to many Social Democrats. For the most thoroughgoing contemporary analysis published by a socialist press, see Ballod, Karl, Der Zukunftsstaat (Stuttgart, 1919)Google Scholar, which Ballod first published in 1898 under the pseudonym Atlanticus and which was frequently cited by Social Democratic authors. See also his article under this pseudonym, “Production und Konsum im Sozialstaat,” NZ 16, pt. 2 (1897–1898): 661–66.Google Scholar

18. Bebel, Die Frau, pp. 380–81, 385, 412–13.

19. Ibid., pp. 396–97, 467–68.

20. Ibid., pp. 389–90.

21. Another way in which this scientism manifested itself was in the wave of interest in popular Darwinism which, as Alfred Kelly has demonstrated, clearly extended to the German working class. Although Kelly goes too far when he argues that this resulted in the “substitution” of Darwin for Marx, there is little doubt that these ideas contributed significantly to both the strength and the flavor of the belief in the inevitability of victory which was so widespread in the Social Democratic movement prior to 1914. Kelly, Alfred, The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860–1914 (Durham, 1981), p. 124.Google Scholar

22. Bebel was undoubtedly influenced in some measure by Fourier. Indeed, he published a book on the great French Utopian in which, though he was critical of many of Fourier's specific proposals and his failure to grasp the laws of historical development, he praised his deep understanding of human nature and his intention to make constructive use of natural human drives in building a new social order. Bebel, August, Charles Fourier: Sein Leben und seine Theorien, 4th ed. (Stuttgart, 1921), pp. 243–45, 253.Google Scholar

23. For the views of Marx and Engels concerning post-revolutionary society, see: Fetscher, Iring, “Marx, Engels, and the Future Society,” Survey, no. 38 (10 1961), pp. 100–10Google Scholar; Tucker, Robert, The Marxian Revolutionary Idea (New York, 1969), pp. 46–48Google Scholar; Ramm, Thilo, “Die künftige Gesellschaftsordnung nach der Theorie von Marx und Engels,” Marxismusstudien 2 (1957): 77–119Google Scholar; Ollman, Bertell, “Marx's Vision of Communism: A Reconstruction,” in Bialer, Seweryn, ed., Radicalism in the Contemporary Age, vol. 2; Radical Visions of the Future (Boulder, 1977), pp. 35–83Google Scholar; Manuel and Manuel, pp. 713–16; Marx, K., Engels, F., and Lenin, V. I., On Communist Society, comp. Borodulina, T. (Moscow, 1975), pp. 9–64.Google Scholar

24. Bebel, Die Frau, pp. 401–4.

25. Ibid., pp. 380–82, 385–88, 403.

26. Ibid., pp. 380, 403.

27. Ibid., pp. 379, 408–9.

28. Ibid., pp. 398, 400–401.

29. He complained that such objections were raised most frequently by professors who were his “most naive” inquisitors. Ibid., pp. 405–6.

30. Ibid., pp. 380–81.

31. The term he uses is “absterben.” Ibid., p. 443. See also his comments to this effect in his book on Fourier. Bebel, Fourier, pp. 223–24.

32. Bebel, August, “Kritische Bemerkungen zu Katzensteins kritischen Bemerkungen über ‘Die Frau und der Sozialismus,’” NZ 15, pt. 1 (1896–1897): 329.Google ScholarKatzenstein's, Simon original article appeared as “Kritische Bemerkungen zu Bebels Buch: ‘Die Frau und der Sozialismus,’” NZ 15, pt. 1 (1896–1897): 293–303.Google Scholar

33. Bebel, Die Frau, pp. 442–44.

34. In this regard, see also Bebel, “Kritische Bemerkungen,” p. 329.

35. Bebel, Die Frau, p. 376.

36. Ibid., p. 443.

37. Bebel, “Kritische Bemerkungen,” pp. 330–31.

38. Bebel, Die Frau, p. 462.

39. Ibid., pp. 469, 475.

40. Ibid., p. 471. Such ideas became widely popular at the turn of the century even among the reformist elements in the party. See, e.g., Braun, Lily, Frauenarbeit und Hauswirtschaft (Berlin, 1901), pp. 21–28.Google Scholar

41. Bebel, Die Frau, pp. 474–75. See also Bebel's endorsement in his book on Fourier of the French Utopian's statement that the level of cultural development of any society can be judged by the position occupied by women in that society. Bebel, Fourier, p. 145.

42. Bebel, Die Frau, p. 459.

43. Ibid., p. 410.

44. Ibid., p. 459.

45. Ibid., p. 462.

46. Ibid., p. 401. In his response to Katzenstein's critique, Bebel argued that in a socialist society “extraordinary” individual achievement will tend to disappear as such accomplishments, in effect, cease to be unusual. Bebel, “Kritische Bemerkungen,” pp. 333–34.

47. Bebel, Die Frau, p. 386.

48. Ibid., pp. 439–41.

49. He responded at length to two of his professorial critics in the introduction to the twenty-fifth edition (1895), which is reprinted in the fiftieth edition. Ibid., pp. x–xxvi. For a lengthy attack by a National Liberal Reichstag deputy, see Lehmann, Paul, Der sozialdemokratische Zukunftsstaat (Weida, 1905).Google Scholar

50. Friedrich Stampfer, an Austrian who eventually became a leading figure in the SPD, claimed that he was converted to socialism by Bellamy's work. Stampfer, Friedrich, Erfahrungen und Erkenntnisse (Cologne, 1957), p. 12.Google Scholar Bellamy's book enjoyed enormous popularity among German workers and was serialized in many German Social Democratic newspapers in the 1890s. Steinberg, p. 138. See also Carl Landauer's comments regarding Bellamy's significance. Landauer, Carl, European Socialism, 2 vols. (Berkeley, 1959). 2:1602–4.Google Scholar

51. Nevertheless, he referred to Fourier as “one of the most gifted men who have ever lived.” Verhandlungen des Reichstags, 8th leg. per., 2nd sess. (1892–1893), 2:816.

52. Ibid., pp. 814–19.

53. Engels to Bebel, Feb. 9, 1893, in Blumenberg, Werner, ed., August Bebels Brief-wechsel mit Friedrich Engels (The Hague, 1965), p. 656.Google Scholar See also the enthusiastic reports of the debate in the leading Austrian socialist paper: “Deutschland,” Arbeiterzeitung (Vienna), no. 7, Feb. 17, 1893, p. 5; “Die Vernichtung der Sozialdemokratie,” Arbeiterzeitung (Vienna), no. 8, Feb. 24, 1893, p. 1; “Die Zukunftsstaatsdebatte,” Arbeiterzeitung (Vienna), no. 13, March 31, 1893, p. 3.

54. Vorwärts (Berlin), no. 30, Feb. 4, 1893.

55. Prot. SPD, 1893, p. 36.

56. Der sozialdemokratische Zukunftsstaat (Berlin 1893).Google Scholar

57. Bernstein, Eduard ed., Dokumente des Sozialismus (reprint Frankfurt, 1968), 3:518–21; 4:227–28.Google Scholar See also the remarks of Karl Ulrich and Wolfgang Heine at the 1898 SPD party congress in which they emphasized that opponents of the SPD were constantly raising the issue. Prot. SPD, 1898, pp. 88, 90.

58. Bernstein, ed., Dokumente, 3:370–76, 471–75; Prot. SPD, 1903, p. 27.

59. See, e.g., Ellenbogen, Wilhelm, Was wollen die Sozialdetnokraten? Zur Aufklärung im Wahlkampfe (Vienna, 1907), pp. 4–11.Google Scholar

60. Miller, p. 235, n. 26. See also Robert Danneberg's advice to Austrian Social Democratic campaign speakers in 1911 to be sure to discuss the movement's final goals. Danneberg, Robert, “Der Wahlredner,” Bildungsarbeit 2, no. 7 (05 1911): 1.Google Scholar

61. Kautsky to Bebel, Dec. 21, 1879, in Kautsky, Karl Jr., ed., August Bebels Brief-wechsel mit Karl Kautsky (Assen, 1971), pp. 3–5.Google Scholar

62. Kautsky, Karl, Das Erfurter Program, 17th ed. (Berlin, 1922), p. v.Google Scholar

63. Ibid., pp. 128, 139.

64. Ibid., pp. 140–42, 148–60.

65. Kautsky, Karl, Die soziale Revolution, 3rd ed. (Berlin, 1906), pp. 67–112.Google Scholar The Austrian socialist leader Victor Adler specifically criticized this work as utopian. Ermers, Max, Victor Adler (Vienna, 1932), pp. 253–54.Google Scholar

66. Danneberg, Robert, Was will die Sozialdemokratie? (Vienna, 1912).Google Scholar

67. At the party's 1912 congress, it was reported that 134,000 copies had been distributed in the first six months after its publication. Protokoll der Verhandlungen des Parteitages der deutschen sozialdemokratischen Arbeiterpartei in Österreich (hereafter cited as Prot. SPÖ), 1912, p. 39.

68. Danneberg, Was will, pp. 11–13. In an article published in Bildungsarbeit the following year Danneberg urged that this pamphlet be put in the hands of every party member particularly because it focused on the main goals of socialism. Danneberg, Robert, “Politische Erziehungsarbeit,” Bildungsarbeit 5, no. 3 (11 1913): 1–2.Google Scholar

69. Danneberg, Robert, Das sozialdemokratische Program (Vienna, 1910), pp. 95–101.Google Scholar

70. Danneberg, Robert, Das sozialdemokratische Program, 3rd ed. (Vienna, 1914), p. 3.Google Scholar For a discussion of the origins and significance of this work, see Kane, Leon, Robert Danneberg (Vienna, 1980), pp. 53–54.Google Scholar

71. Ellenbogen, Wilhelm, Was will die Socialdemokratie? (Vienna, 1899), pp. 58–66.Google Scholar A second, revised, edition, published in 1914, dealt more explicitly and at somewhat greater length with the Zukunftsstaat. Ellenbogen, Wilhelm, Was will die Sozialdemokratie? (Vienna, 1914), pp. 94–106.Google Scholar

72. Bebel, August, Unsere Ziele, 13th ed. (Berlin, 1910); see esp. pp. 23–38.Google Scholar

73. Stern, J., Der Zukunftsstaat, 5th ed. (Berlin, 1906), p. 15.Google Scholar

74. Ibid., p. 22.

75. Ibid., p. 38.

76. Warum musst Du Sozialdemokrat sein? (Berlin, 1911), pp. 12–14.Google Scholar

77. Kessler, Gustav, Die Ziele der sozialdemokratischen Partei (Berlin, 1895), pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

78. Braun, Adolf, Lindemann, Hugo, Süssheim, Max, Stampfer, Friedrich, Zetkin, Clara, Ziele und Wege: Erläuterung der sozialdemokratischen Gegenwartsforderungen (Berlin, 1906), p. 5.Google Scholar

79. Volksbildung, Wissenschaft, Kunst und Sozialdemokratie (Berlin, 1907), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

80. Zetkin, Clara, Geistiges Proletariat, Frauenfrage und Sozialismus (Berlin, 1902), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

81. Zietz, Luise, Die Frauen und der politische Kampf, 2nd ed., rev. (Berlin, 1912), pp. 34–35.Google Scholar See also her pamphlets entitled Bist Du eine der Unsrigen? (Berlin, 1912), esp. pp. 19–20Google Scholar, and Komm zu uns! Ein Weckruf an die junge Arbeiterin (Berlin, 1914), p. 12.Google Scholar

82. Schlesinger, Therese, Was wollen die Frauen in der Politik? (Vienna, 1909), pp. 24–27.Google Scholar

83. Gumplowicz, Ladislaus, Ehe und freie Liebe (Berlin, 1900), pp. 10–12.Google Scholar It should be noted that the question of the role of women under socialism remained quite controversial within the Social Democratic movement. For an example of a critical response to the views of Bebel and other advocates of complete female equality, see Fischer, Edmund, “Die Frauenfrage,” Sozialistische Monatshefte 11, pt. 1 (1905): 258–68.Google Scholar That such views were often at least privately held by even nominally radical socialists was frequently remarked by female members of the movement. See, e.g., Helene Bloch, review of Frauenarbeit und Hauswirtschaft by Braun, Lily, Sozialistische Monatshefte 7, pt. 1 (1901): 469Google Scholar; Schlesinger-Eckstein, Therese, “Prostitution und Frauenfrage,” NZ 23, pt. 2 (1904–1905): 820.Google Scholar

84. Kautsky, Karl, “Unser Feiertag,” Maifeier 1894, p. 3.Google Scholar

85. P. K., “Die sieghafte sozialistische Grundidee im Maifeste,” Maifest 1899, p. 2. Max Adler used similar terms in an article in the 1904 Austrian May Day publication. Adler, Max, “Das neue Evangelium,” 1. Mai 1904, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar

86. See esp.: Kreowski, Ernst, “Zukunfts-Verheissung,” Maifeier 1904 (German), pp. 7–8Google Scholar; Key, Ellen, “Kunst und Sozialismus,” 1. Mai 1900 (Austrian), pp. 4–5Google Scholar; Stephen Gross-mann, “Wie man von uns reden wird: E.in Gespräch der Zukunft,” and Braun, Lily, “Mutterschaft und Emanzipation,” 1. Mai 1902 (Austrian), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar See also Friedrich Adler's May Day manifesto for 1911. Adler, Friedrich, “Und wieder ruft der Mai,” Arbeiterzeitung (Vienna), no. 118, 04 30, 1911, p. 1.Google Scholar

87. Renner, Karl, “Gedankengang für eine Festrede zur Feier des ersten Mai,” Bil-dungsarbeit 1, no. 6 (04 1910): 2Google Scholar; Braun, Adolf, “Die Bedeutung des ersten Mai: Disposition einer Versammlungsrede,” Bildungsarbeit 1, no. 6 (04 1910): 4Google Scholar; Deutsch, Julius, “Zur Feier des ersten Mai: Disposition einer Versammlungsrede,” Bildungsarbeit 4, no. 7 (04 1913): 1.Google Scholar

88. Hanisch, Ernst, “Die Marx-Rezeption in der Österreichischen Arbeiterbewegung,” Südostforschungen 37 (1978): 118.Google Scholar

89. Schlesinger, Therese, “Genosse Doktor,” Österreichischer Arbeiter-Kaknder für das Jahr 1902, pp. 50–54.Google Scholar

90. “Herr Dangelmayer und der Zukunftsstaat,” ibid., 1898, pp. 122–26.

91. Therese Schlesinger, “Die Apostelbrüder,” ibid., 1906, pp. 108–12.

92. Wenzel Holek, “Befreiung,” ibid., 1910, pp. 78–87.

93. Emmy Freundlich, “Frauenarbeit und Mutterschaft,” ibid., 1912, pp. 89–92; “An die Frauen und über die Frauen,” ibid., 1913, pp. 71–74. See also Gustav Eckstein, “Utopien,” ibid., 1912, pp. 85–88. Although Eckstein polemicized against the classical utopians, he urged his readers to have confidence that the communist society which served as the “guiding star” of the movement will finally be achieved.

94. Winarsky, Leopold, “Die Bildungsbestrebungen der organisierten Wiener Arbeiter-schaft,” Der Kampf 2 (1908–1909): 111–14Google Scholar; Danneberg, Robert, “Sozialdemokratische Erzie-hungsarbeit,” Der Kampf 2 (1908–1909): 454–59Google Scholar; Danneberg, Robert, “Die Ergebnisse sozialdemokratischer Bildungsarbeit,” Der Kampf 8 (1914–1915): 278–80Google Scholar; Prot. SAÖ, 1909, p. 31; Prot. SAÖ, 1912, pp. 32–34, 177–81; Prot. SAÖ, 1913, pp. 32–37, 106; Schröder, Wilhelm, Handbuch der sozialdemokratischen Parteitage von 1863 bis 1909 (Munich, 1910), pp. 91–92Google Scholar; Schröder, Wilhelm, Handbuch der sozialdemokratischen Parteitage von 1910 bis 1913 (Munich, 1917), pp. 94–102Google Scholar; Christ, Karl, Sozialdemokratie und Volkserziehung (Frankfurt, 1975), pp. 167–76Google Scholar; Fricke, Dieter, Der deutsche Arbeiterbewegung 1869–1914: Ein Handbuch über ihre Organization und Tätigkeit im Klassenkampf (Berlin [East], 1976), pp. 486–88, 492–95.Google Scholar

95. Danneberg, Robert, “X. (Schluss) Vortrag: ‘Der Zukunftsstaat,’” Bildungsarbeit 1, no. 7 (05 1910): 3.Google Scholar

96. Christ, p. 171.

97. For helpful analyses of the reasons for this, see Langewiesche, Dieter, Zur Freizeit des Arbeiters: Bildungsbestrebungen und Freizeitgestaltung österreichischer Arbeiter im Kaiser-reich und in der Ersten Republik (Stuttgart, 1979), pp. 137–38Google Scholar; Krug, pp. 264–65; Langewiesche and Schönhoven, pp. 135–42.

98. See above, n. 12. For an interesting contemporary analysis of the development of these institutions, see Mehlich, Ernst, “Die Arbeiterbibliotheken,” Der Bibliothekar 4 (1912): 437–39.Google Scholar

99. Bernstein, Eduard, Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozial-demokratie (Stuttgart, 1906), p. 169.Google Scholar

100. Bernstein, Eduard, “Vom Wesen des Sozialismus,” in Zur Theorie und Geschichte des Sozialismus, 3 (Berlin, 1904): 44.Google Scholar

101. This is not, of course, to suggest that this was the only major issue to divide revisionists from orthodox Marxists. Indeed, after the first flurry of debate about Bernstein's statement concerning the Endziel, it tended to recede somewhat in importance as compared to the discussion of the revisionists' specific technical criticisms of the orthodox point of view. For a general treatment of the debate over the Endziel, see Strutynski, Peter, “Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Mantisten und Revisionisten in der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung um die Jahrhundertwende” (unpub. Ph.D. diss., Munich Univ., 1974), pp. 96–201.Google Scholar

102. Prot. SPD, 1898, p. 87.

103. Ibid., p. 118.

104. Ibid., p. 100.

105. Ibid., p. 93.

106. Ibid., pp. 96–97.

107. Kautsky, Karl, Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm (Stuttgart, 1899), p. 4.Google Scholar Similar arguments were expressed more than a decade later in a different context by the Austrian leader Engelbert Pernerstorfer in “Ein neuer Utopist,” Der Kampf 7 (1913–1914): 88.Google Scholar

108. Kautsky, Bernstein und das Programm, pp. 179–80.

109. Ibid., pp. 192–95.

110. It was published as Wie ist wissenschaftlicher Sozialismus möglich? (Berlin, 1901).Google Scholar

111. Kautsky, Karl, “Problematisches gegen wissenschaftlichen Sozialismus,” NZ 19, pt. 2 (1900–1901): 359.Google Scholar

112. Ibid., p. 360.

113. Brod, Jakob, “Der Entwurf eines neuen Parteiprogramms,” Arbeiterzeitung (Vienna), no. 273, 10 5, 1901, pp. 4–5Google Scholar; Winarsky, Leopold, “Zur Revision des Parteiprogramms,” Arbeiterzeitung (Vienna), no. 276, 10 8, 1901, p. 7Google Scholar; Adler, Max, “Zur Revision des Parteiprogramms,” Arbeiterzeitung (Vienna), no. 290, 10 22, 1901, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar For Kautsky's rejection of this charge, see Kautsky, Karl, “Der Wiener Parteitag,” NZ 20, pt. 1 (1901–1902): 197–203.Google Scholar

114. Wangermann, Ernst, “Der Auseinandersetzung über das Verhältnis von Reform zu Revolution in der deutschen und ö'sterreichischen Sozialdemokratie,” in Botz, Gerhard, Hautmann, Hans, and Konrad, Helmut, eds., Geschichte und Gesellschaft: Festschrift fur Karl R. Stadler zum 60. Geburtstag (Vienna, 1974), pp. 259–63.Google Scholar See also: Kautsky, Karl, “Ein Brief,” Der Kampf 1 (1907–1908): 10–11Google Scholar; Bauer, Otto, “Die Einheit des deutschen Sozialismus,” Der Kampf 2 (1908–1909): 247–50.Google Scholar Though himself a critic of revisionism, Victor Adler wrote to Kautsky that his fears were “absurdly exaggerated.” Victor Adler to Kautsky, June 6, 1902, in Adler, Victor, Briefwechsel mit August Bebel und Karl Kautsky, Adler, Friedrich, ed. (Vienna, 1954), pp. 403–4.Google Scholar

115. Bauer, Otto, “Gefahren des Reformismus,” Der Kampf 3 (1909–1910): 241–44Google Scholar; Prot. SAÖ, 1909, pp. 135–36; Prot. SAÖ, 1912, pp. 178–79; Prot. SAÖ, 1913, pp. 158–60.

116. Bauer, Otto, “Zum Maitag des Wahlkampfes,” Der Kampf 4 (1910–1911): 342.Google Scholar See also Prot. SAÖ, 1913, p. 160.

117. See, e.g., Ernst Hanisch's discussion of this problem. Hanisch, pp. 115–16.

118. For helpful analyses of the functions of Utopian thinking, see: Manuel and Manuel, pp. 24–29; Lasky, Melvin J., Utopia and Revolution (Chicago, 1976), pp. 592–93Google Scholar; Bauman, Zygmunt, Socialism, The Active Utopia (New York, 1976), pp. 10–17.Google Scholar

119. Craig, p. 269. It should be noted that Craig adds the qualifying phrase, “for all practical purposes.”