Who loves Eduard Bernstein...I do!

The article on German Social Democracy was by far my favorite yet in this class. The attempted reconciliation of the trade unions and the Social Democratic Party was flawlessly weaved together for a compelling historical story. My favorite part of the essay was Eduard Bernsetein's contribution to the Social Democrats dilemma on reconciling the contemporary economic landscape of the 1890's with their tenants of Marxism. His revisionist history sought to dismantle those very tenants and I thought was accomplished very well, though the Party ultimately went another route. This is probably because instead of reconciling the two, if his theory was accepted, would have completely eliminated Marxism as one of their priciples. However, Bernstein did well in his theory to present a encompassing revision on Marxism that followed the new Social Democratic principle that any immediate revolution was impossible. However, Bernstein's theory would have had longterm implications in completely seperating Marxism form the Party. Continuing on with Bernstein's revision, one of his attacks was on the fundamental Marxist tenant stating that out of capitalism comes anarchy. Bernstein used the recent history of the economy to show that in fact, for the past two decades, no major crisis had occured as capitalism continued to grow and allow for prosperity. Real wages were even increasing during the 1890's. Bernstein proposed that capitalism actually led to order, not anarchy. This in turn ruled out any crisis from occuring in the future and thus a complete separation from Marxism would have to occur. He ultimately discovered that socialism is not a necessity resulting from capitalist development. Socialism instead would have to be a result of the will of the people and thus a chosen philosophy instead of a necessity of governing dynamics from the downfall of capitalism as Marxism holds. The theory continues to state that all the classes could indulge in this will, which again breaks with Marxism as the overthrow by the proletariat was a necassary action to move forth in a new economy built upon the bases of socialism. For me, I love this theory. Bernstein's revision was relevant to the times and completely undermined the tenants of Marxism, which I love that accomplishment even more. However, it is clear to see why the Social Democratic Party could not go this way as acceptance of this theory would have completely seperated the Party with its established base of Marxist theory.

Thoughts on Karin Hausen's Article

I found Hausen's article on technical progress and women's labour to be very interesting. Hausen discusses the invention of the sewing machine and its effect on Germany's labor and social stratospheres. She focuses on mainly two topics: the move away from handmade production to capitalistic production and the effect on women's social/work roles. I love the way Hausen proceeds with this essay beginning with an outline of the history of the sewing machine and its evolution. Not just the invention itself, but also the way techniques were developed to sell the product and make it marketable to all social classes. Also, the way in which the sewing machine becomes important in the production of goods, specifically clothes, which is her main focus, really makes one understand the value and necessity of the sewing machine in the progression of the labor industry with regards to industrialization. However, the spin she takes on the sewing machine is geared to its effect on women's labor and the way they managed these changes, specifically working at home. However, this transition into the home from factories for lower class working women did not create a desirable return on their efforts. They in fact made less money because of the overall cost of the sewing machine over paying it off for a two year period, buying their own yarn and machine oil, and costly repairs. The argument she makes is opposing the traditional view that this transition of labor into the home released some of the burden for women. She argues that this transition in fact caused more hindrance in that now they were solely responsible for raising the children and working in the home for supplemental income, while the husbands were now in the factories. Her argument is flawlessy delivered and gives good supporting evidence to back up it up. The only part that was a little hazy was her reasoning that the middle class women were working to keep up appearances. This new information she presents is kind of thrown into a much stronger argument that would have been better off without. My only reasoning for this is that Hausen does not fully develop the evidence and reasoning for the inclusion for this particular case. Overall, I really enjoyed the article and thought it was well presented.