Als es um die grossen Fragen der Taktik und nicht mehr nur um innerorganisatorische Konflikte ging, trat an die Stelle des Kompetenzstreits im einzelnen Fall der allgemeine Konflikt: die Frage nach der „Souveränität” in der Arbeiterbewegung. Die Parteiaktion wird vom Veto der Generalkommission abhangig gemacht.

Die verschiedenen Massenstreiks, die um die Jahrhundertwende in verschiedenen Ländern Europas dieses Kampfmittel im Wahlrechts-kampf erprobten, insbesondere die zentrale Bedeutung des politischen Massenstreiks in der russischen Revolution von 1905, brachten die Debatte über die Mittel, mit denen in Deutschland, zum Beispiel in Preussen, der Wahlrechtskampf zu führen sei, in Fluss. Der internationale Sozialistenkongress in Amsterdam 1904 beschäftigte sich mit der Frage des Massenstreiks. Die Debatte hatte in der Presse kaum einen gewissen Umfang erreicht, als die Generalkommission mit dem Kölner Gewerkschaftskongress 1905 den Beschlussen der Partei in dieser Frage zuvorkam. Die Gewerkschaften stellten die Sozialdemokratie vor eine vollendete Tatsache. Die Aktualität der Frage wurde bestritten, jede Beschlussfassung über eine eventuelle zukünftige Anwendung politischer Massenstreiks wurde abgelehnt; der Gewerkschaftskongress erliess sogar in aller Forme in Diskussionsverbot. Der Referent zu dem Tagesordnungspunkt 4, „die Stellung der Gewerkschaften zum Generalstreik”, Bömmelburg, sagte auf dem Kölner Kongress: Alle internationalen Kongresse habben sich damit beschäftigt. Für Deutschland ist der politische Massenstreik indiskutabel. Er wird auf der Tagesordnung des nächsten Parteitages voraussichtlich zu finden sein. „Daher mussten auch wir diesmal dazu Stellung nehmen, um nicht Gefahr zu laufen, dass wir uns später Beschlüssen fügen mussten, die einseitig an anderer Stelle gefasst sind”.

The British Labour Party was not explicitly socialist until 1918. In February of that year a Special Conference adopted a new constitution which stated that the ultimate aim of the party was:-

“To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”

Before this change, Ramsay MacDonald, writing in 1911, had said: “The Labour Party is not Socialist. It is a union of Socialist and trade-union bodies for immediate political work…” The new party, founded in 1900 as the Labour Representation Committee, was in many ways un manage de convenance of militant Socialists and Glad-stonian Liberal trade-union leaders. The “immediate political work” for which these groups came together was the representation of the working class in parliament. Of the need for such representation both sides were firmly convinced: the Socialists because they hoped to convert the trade unions to their own way of thinking; the trade-union leaders because they were disappointed by the failure of the official Liberal party constituency caucuses to adopt more working-class candidates.

In the final years of the Nineteenth Century, when Sidney and Beatrice Webb crystallized parts of their research and of current thought in the terms “Method of Collective Bargaining” and “Method of Legal Enactment”, the ideas embodied in those terms were the foci of hot debates among working people and their leaders in the greater part of the western world. Gompers and his lieutenants in the adolescent American Federation of Labor (AFL) had convinced themselves that the federal character of the government of the United States plus the power of the judiciary to declare laws unconstitutional formed an insurmountable roadblock to comprehensive, effective use of legal enactment; but the dissenting voices were by no means muted. The leaders of the burgeoning “New Unionism” in England sought to combine more militant collective bargaining with more emphasis on attempts to secure protective legislation - to the evident displeasure of adherents of the aging “New Model”. In France, the infant General Confederation of Labor (CGT) scornfully rejected both of the Webbs' methods in favor of revolutionary syndicalism. And in Germany the workers' movements strode forward uncowed by the stick of Bismarck's anti-Socialist law and unseduced by the carrot of his social legislation.

On January 8, 1893, the voters in the second electoral district, Department of the Tarn, cast ballots in a partial election of more than local interest. The Marquis de Solages had resigned his seat in the Chamber of Deputies on the previous October 14 during the bitterness generated by the strike against his Carmaux coal company. The socialists of the district, at first with considerable hesitation, nominated as their candidate Jean Jaurés, who had emerged as the outstanding champion of the Carmaux miners in 1892. When he carried the election against Héral, his chief opponent, by a vote of 5317 to 4843, it meant the return to Parliament of the man who emerged as one of the three most important socialists in the prewar Republic.

Wer das heutige Chikago mit seinem im Hintergrund bleibenden deutschen Element durchstreift, vermag sich kaum vorzustellen, dass es einmal einige zwanzig Prozent der Einwohnerschaft bildete. Nicht bloss die Zahlenstärke, auch die Geschlossenheit der aus Deutschland Stammenden beeindruckt den rückblickenden Beobachter. Angehörige aller Religionen fanden sich damals zu ausgesprochen prodeutschen Kundgebungen zusammen, besassen doch Katholizismus, Protestantismus und Judentum in den Worten eines massgeblichen Führers „nicht mehr Bedeutung als schwarze, braune, blonde oder rothe Haare”. Kein Wunder also, dass die Vorstellung entstehen konnte, diese Stadt sei „zum grossen Theile eine deutsche Schöpfung”.

Das Sozialistengesetz zerstörte, zehn Jahre nach ihrer Entstehung, die Gewerkschaftsbewegung, die 1868 so eifrig begonnen hatte. Die Entwicklung, die damit verschleppt und aufgeschoben war, kam nach Aufhebung des Sozialistengesetzes zum Austrag. Der durch sie her-aufbeschworene Konflikt von Gewerkschaft und Partei 1906 ist als ein Bestandteil der Industrialisierung Deutschlands aufzufassen. Die Überordnung der Partei über die Gewerkschaften gehörte der Zeit an, in der Deutschland verglichen mit England ein industriell unter-entwickeltes Land war. Die Umkehrung des Verhältnisses und die Angleichung an das Modell der gleichzeitig in England entstehenden Labour Party trat mit dem endgültigen Durchbruch zum Industriestaat ein.

Comment Marx travaillait-il? La question prend une importance toute spéciale si l'on convient que seule une étude de genèse pourrait nous éclairer, non seulement sur le sens réel des oeuvres inachevées ou posthumes, mais encore, à n'en pas douter, sur l'ensemble de l'oeuvre.

Aucun examen de détail n'a été tenté pour étudier une méthode de travail que l'on sait ou devine pourtant toute personnelle, et, plus particulièrement, opposée à celle de Hegel. Un critique russe ayant commenté la methode dialectique de Marx, celui-ci ajoute à la seconde edition du Capital les réflexions que voici: «…le procédé d'exposition doit se distvnguci formellement du procédé d'investigation. A l'investigation de faire la matière sienne dans tous ses détails, d'en analyser les diverses formes de développement, et de découvrir leur lien intime.

The period 1870–1880 represents an important phase in the history of social movements in Russia. Within that decade ideas and groups merged whose influence can be discerned in the events that preceded and those that followed the upheaval of 1917.

Among those groups one of the more interesting was the so-called Lavrists, or vperedovtzy, named after the publication “Vpered” (Forward), founded and edited by Peter Lavrov (1823–1900) and first published in Zurich, Switzerland, where volumes I and II were brought out in 1873 And 1874 respectively, and then in London, where volumes III, IV And V (the last-named not under the editorship of lavrov) as well as a bimonthly edition of “Vpered” were published during 1874–1877. In addition, the printing office of “Vpered” also produced several books and pamphlets.

A study of parliamentary elections in a certain area must be preceded by the attempt to describe the character of the electorate. This is the more necessary as it is often little recognised to what a large extent the size and composition of the new electorate created by the £ 10 franchise varied from borough to borough. This was due to some extent to the strength of local registration societies and the different interpretation which the revising barristers gave to the term ratepayer, but its main cause was the character of the housing in the constituencies. Land values, custom and, of course, the wage structure of the community determined the quality and standard of building and in consequence rent and rates. While the urban middle classes were probably everywhere in possession of the vote the above mentioned factors clearly determine the proportion of the working-class who enjoyed the franchise. It seems useful therefore to compare the Yorkshire figures with those for other parts of the country. To do this it is best to disregard York and Hull with their large number of freemen voters and to concentrate on the newly enfranchised boroughs.

The electorates in the five new boroughs were all of a fair size; the smallest, Halifax, had 1,491 electors and Sheffield over 7,000. Yet with the exception of the latter, where as the result of the many skilled workmen and small masters we expect to find a large democratic electorate, the proportion of voters, whether measured in terms of inhabitants or houses, is almost inversely related to the size of the town.

There are few legends relating to the history of the Labour Movement which have enjoyed the influence and popularity of the story of how British workmen responded to the American Civil War. Their supposed unanimity in opposition to the Slave Power and their resistance to every ruling class project for intervention on its behalf were thought to be a serviceable example and inspiration, not only by the stalwarts of the International and the Reform League, but by the organisers of the anti-war campaigns of 1878 and after. Even today a writer on „Peaceful Co-existence” finds it an instructive example of the power of the working class in international relations.

In my Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete I suggested the possibility that the Dorians of the historical period entered as masters into a “caste-system” first established, according to a tradition reported by Aristotle, in Minoan times; and further, that the original Dorian land settlement was the product of the amalgamation of two systems: the native system of land tenure was adapted to the tribal institutions of the conquerors. The present article is an attempt to clarify these two propositions by presenting some of the relevant arguments. For the propositions themselves seem fundamental to a proper understanding of the conservative character of the economic and social structure of the Cretan aristocratic cities in the historical period, as compared with the radical transformation of the democratic states, and, in particular, of Athens.

The gradual acceptance by politically influential people of the belief that deliberate control of town growth was both feasible and fruitful is a theme in the history of town planning which has many aspects. The transformation of nineteenth century cities by means of street improvement was one of these; and Mr. David Pinkney has recently made a mature assessment of the range of motives underlying the sweeping changes wrought in the configuration of Parisian streets under the Second Empire. By contrast with Paris under the prefecture of Baron Haussmann, the transformation of London was tentative, not to say hesitating, and not undertaken for all the same reasons. In Paris, Mr. Pinkney has shown that political and strategic aims were mixed with desires for aesthetic and social amelioration. “In London”, Napoleon III is reported as saying, “they are concerned only with giving the best possible satisfaction to the needs of traffic.” But were they? It is the purpose of this brief note to comment on the validity of this assertion, and in doing so to illustrate an early approach to matters of urban improvement which are still at the heart of some contemporary town-planning problems.

At the University of Pisa, where he studied law, Buonarroti had been acquainted with the i8th century social philosophers especially Helvetius, Mably, Rousseau and Morelly, who had moulded his social and political ideology. When the French Revolution broke out he was among the most courageous protagonists to defend its ideas: “J'attendais depuis longtemps le signal, il fut donné”. In October 1789 he left his native Tuscany, “ivre de l'amour de la liberté, épris de la courageuse entreprise des Français, indigné centre la tyrannic, et las de l'inquisition et des persécutions du despotisme”, as he said later in his defence at Vendôme. In Corsica he published an Italian paper in defence of the French Revolution, the Giornale Patriottico, and in November 1790 he obtained a post in the administration of the island as head of the “Bureau des domaines nationaux et du clergé”. In this capacity he had to deal with the administration and sale of landed property. The rural economy of the island was based on a nearly equal distribution of very small holdings, there were hardly any labourers, and there existed a strong tradition of common interests and collective rights. In his Survey of Corsica Buonarroti wrote: “La communalité des biens semble garantir partout au pauvre le sentiment de son indépendance: partout les communes des campagnes réclament des biens que la tyrannic génoise et française ravit au peuple pour récompenser les crimes de ses favoris. Les grands propriétaires sont en très petit nombre: l'homme sans terre est rare, comme celui sans courage”.

The successful reassertion of the authority of the Court of the Earl Marshal, in the recent case of the Corporation of Manchester vs. The Manchester Palace of Varieties, Ltd., has renewed interest in this ancient institution. The court ruled that The Manchester Palace of Varieties had wrongly displayed the heraldic arms of the Corporation, contrary to the laws and customs of arms, and that the court itself, which had last sat in 1751 and which Blackstone described as having fallen into contempt and disuse, was still empowered to give relief to those who thought themselves aggrieved in such matters.