Collective narcissism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_narcissism

In social psychology, collective narcissism (or group narcissism) is the tendency to exaggerate the positive image and importance of a group to which one belongs. While the classic definition of narcissism focuses on the individual, collective narcissism extends this concept to similar excessively high opinions of a person's social group, and suggests that a group can function as a narcissistic entity.

Collective narcissism is related to ethnocentrism. While ethnocentrism is an assertion of the ingroup's supremacy, collective narcissism is a self-defensive tendency to invest unfulfilled self-entitlement into a belief in an ingroup's uniqueness and greatness. Thus, the ingroup is expected to become a vehicle of actualisation of frustrated self-entitlement. In addition, ethnocentrism primarily focuses on self-centeredness at an ethnic or cultural level, while collective narcissism is extended to any type of ingroup.

Collective narcissism is associated with intergroup hostility.

Development of the concept

In Sigmund Freud's 1922 study Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, he noted how every little canton looks down upon the others with contempt, as an instance of what would later to be termed Freud's theory of collective narcissism. Wilhelm Reich and Isaiah Berlin explored what the latter called the rise of modern national narcissism: the self-adoration of peoples. "Group narcissism" is described in a 1973 book entitled The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness by psychologist Erich Fromm. In the 1990s, Pierre Bourdieu wrote of a sort of collective narcissism affecting intellectual groups, inclining them to turn a complacent gaze on themselves. Noting how people's desire to see their own groups as better than other groups can lead to intergroup bias, Henri Tajfel approached the same phenomena in the seventies and eighties, so as to create social identity theory, which argues that people's motivation to obtain positive self-esteem from their group memberships is one driving-force behind in-group bias. Sam Vaknin wrote an essay about "collective narcissism" in 2002, in his book "Malignant Self-love: Narcissism revisited". The term "collective narcissism" was highlighted anew by researcher Agnieszka Golec de Zavala who created the Collective Narcissism Scale and developed research on intergroup and political consequences of collective narcissism. People who score high on the Collective Narcissists Scale agree that their group's importance and worth are not sufficiently recognised by others and that their group deserves special treatment. They insist that their group must obtain special recognition and respect.

The Scale was modelled on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. However, collective and individual narcissism are modestly correlated. Only collective narcissism predicts intergroup behaviours and attitudes. Collective narcissism is related to vulnerable narcissism (individual narcissism manifesting as distrustful and neurotic interpersonal style), and grandiose narcissism (individual narcissism manifesting as exceedingly self-aggrandising interpersonal style) and to low self-esteem. This is in line with the theorising of Theodore Adorno who proposed that collective narcissism motivated support for the Nazi politics in Germany and was a response to undermined sense of self-worth.

Characteristics and consequences

Collective narcissism is characterized by the members of a group holding an inflated view of their ingroup which requires constant external validation. Collective narcissism can be exhibited by an individual on behalf of any social group or by a group as a whole. Research participants found that they could apply statements of the Collective Narcissism Scale to various groups: national, ethnic, religious, ideological, political, students of the same university, fans of the same football team, professional groups and organizations. Collectively narcissistic groups require external validation, just as individual narcissists do. Organizations and groups who exhibit this behavior typically try to protect their identities through rewarding group-building behavior (this is positive reinforcement).

Collective narcissism predicts retaliatory hostility to past, present, actual and imagined offences to the ingroup and negative attitudes towards groups perceived as threatening. It predicts constantly feeling threatened in intergroup situations that require a stretch of imagination to be perceived as insulting or threatening. For example, in Turkey, collective narcissists felt humiliated by the Turkish wait to be admitted to the European Union. After a transgression as petty as a joke made by a Polish celebrity about the country's government, Polish collective narcissists threatened physical punishment and openly rejoiced in the misfortunes of the "offender". Collective narcissism predicts conspiracy thinking about secretive malevolent actions of outgroups.

Individual/Collective Narcissism Equivalencies

Individualists on themselves	Individualists on collectivists
You wish people would recognize your authority.	They wish others would recognize their group's authority.
You have natural talent for influencing people.	Their group has all predispositions to influence others.
If you ruled the world, it would be a much better place.	If their group ruled the world, it would be a much better place.
You are extraordinary.	Their group is extraordinary.
You like to be the center of attention.	They like when their group is the center of attention.
You will never be satisfied until you get all that you deserve.	They will never be satisfied until their group gets all that it deserves.
You insist upon getting the respect that is due you.	They insist upon their group getting the respect that is due it.
You want to amount to something in the eyes of the world.	They want their group to amount to something in the eyes of the world.
People never give you enough recognition for the things you've done.	Not many people seem to understand the full importance of their group.

Collective vs. individual

There are several connections, and intricate relationships between collective and individual narcissism, or between individual narcissism stemming from group identities or activities, however no single relationship between groups and individuals is conclusive or universally applicable. In some cases, collective narcissism is an individual's idealization of the ingroup to which they belong, while in another the idealization of the group takes place at a more group-level, rather than an instillation within each individual member of the group. In some cases, one might project the idealization of himself onto his group, while in another case, the development of individual-narcissism might stem from being associated with a prestigious, accomplished, or extraordinary group.

An example of the first case listed above is that of national identity. One might feel a great sense of love and respect for one's nation, flag, people, city, or governmental systems as a result of a collectively narcissistic perspective. It must be remembered that these feelings are not explicitly the result of collective narcissism, and that collective narcissism is not explicitly the cause of patriotism, or any other group-identifying expression. However, glorification of one's group (such as a nation) can be seen in some cases as a manifestation of collective narcissism.

In the case where the idealization of self is projected onto ones group, group-level narcissism tends to be less binding than in other cases. Typically in this situation the individual—already individually narcissistic—uses a group to enhance his own self-perceived quality, and by identifying positively with the group and actively building it up, the narcissist is enhancing simultaneously both his own self-worth, and his group's worth. However, because the link tends to be weaker, individual narcissists seeking to raise themselves up through a group will typically dissociate themselves from a group they feel is damaging to their image, or that is not improving proportionally to the amount of support they are investing in the group.

Involvement in one's group has also been shown to be a factor in the level of collective narcissism exhibited by members of a group. Typically a more involved member of a group is more likely to exhibit a higher opinion of the group. This results from an increased affinity for the group as one becomes more involved, as well as a sense of investment or contribution to the success of the group. Also, another perspective asserts that individual narcissism is related to collective narcissism exhibited by individual group members. Personal narcissists, seeing their group as a defining extension of themselves, will defend their group (collective narcissism) more avidly than a non-narcissist, to preserve their own perceived social standing along with their group's. In this vein, a problem is presented; for while an individual narcissist will be heroic in defending his or her ingroup during intergroup conflicts, he or she may be a larger burden on the ingroup in intragroup situations by demanding admiration, and exhibiting more selfish behavior on the intragroup level—individual narcissism.

Conversely, another relationship between collective narcissism and the individual can be established with individuals who have a low or damaged ego investing their image in the well-being of their group, which bears strong resemblance to the "ideal-hungry" followers in the charismatic leader-follower relationship. As discussed, these ego-damaged group-investors seek solace in belonging to a group; however, a strong charismatic leader is not always requisite for someone weak to feel strength by building up a narcissistic opinion of their own group.

Charismatic leader-follower relationship

Another sub-concept encompassed by collective narcissism is that of the "charismatic leader-follower relationship" theorized by political psychologist Jerrold Post. Post takes the view that collective narcissism is exhibited as a collection of individual narcissists, and discusses how this type of relationship emerges when a narcissistic charismatic leader, appeals to narcissistic "ideal-hungry" followers.

An important characteristic of the leader follower-relationship are the manifestations of narcissism by both the leader and follower of a group. Within this relationship there are two categories of narcissists: the mirror-hungry narcissist, and the ideal-hungry narcissist—the leader and the followers respectively. The mirror-hungry personality typically seeks a continuous flow of admiration and respect from his followers. Conversely, the ideal-hungry narcissist takes comfort in the charisma and confidence of his mirror-hungry leader. The relationship is somewhat symbiotic; for while the followers provide the continuous admiration needed by the mirror-hungry leader, the leader's charisma provides the followers with the sense of security and purpose that their ideal-hungry narcissism seeks. Fundamentally both the leader and the followers exhibit strong collectively narcissistic sentiments—both parties are seeking greater justification and reason to love their group as much as possible.

Perhaps the most significant example of this phenomenon would be that of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler's charisma and polarizing speeches satisfied the German people's hunger for a strong leader. Hitler's speeches were characterized by their emphasis on "strength"—referring to Germany—and "weakness"—referring to the Jewish people. Some have even described Hitler's speeches as "hypnotic"—even to non-German speakers—and his rallies as "watching hypnosis on large scale". Hitler's charisma convinced the German people to believe that they were not weak, and that by destroying the perceived weakness from among them (the Jews), they would be enhancing their own strength—satisfying their ideal-hungry desire for strength, and pleasing their mirror-hungry charismatic leader.

Intergroup aggression

Collective narcissism has been shown to be a factor in intergroup aggression and bias. Primary components of collectively narcissistic intergroup relations involve aggression against outgroups with which collective narcissistic perceive as threatening. Collective narcissism helps to explain unreasonable manifestations of retaliation between groups. A narcissistic group is more sensitive to perceived criticism exhibited by outgroups, and is therefore more likely to retaliate. Collective narcissism is also related to negativity between groups who share a history of distressing experiences. The members of a narcissistic ingroup are likely to assume threats or negativity towards their ingroup where threats or negativity were not necessarily implied or exhibited. It is thought that this heightened sensitivity to negative feelings towards the ingroup is a result of underlying doubts about the greatness of the ingroup held by its members.

Similar to other elements of collective narcissism, intergroup aggression related to collective narcissism draws parallels with its individually narcissistic counterparts. An individual narcissist might react aggressively in the presence of humiliation, irritation, or anything threatening to his self-image. Likewise, a collective narcissist, or a collectively narcissistic group might react aggressively when the image of the group is in jeopardy, or when the group is collectively humiliated. Individuals with high levels of national narcissism are more likely to fear their nation being ridiculed while simultaneously enjoying mocking other nations.

A study conducted among 6 to 9 year-olds by Judith Griffiths indicated that ingroups and outgroups among these children functioned relatively identically to other known collectively narcissistic groups in terms of intergroup aggression. The study noted that children generally had a significantly higher opinion of their ingroup than of surrounding outgroups, and that such ingroups indirectly or directly exhibited aggression on surrounding outgroups.

Ethnocentrism

Main article: Ethnocentrism

Collective narcissism and ethnocentrism are closely related; they can be positively correlated and often shown to be coexistent, but they are independent in that either can exist without the presence of the other. In a study conducted by Boris Bizumic, some ethnocentrism was shown to be an expression of group-level narcissism. It was noted, however, that not all manifestations of ethnocentrism are narcissistically based, and conversely, not all cases of group-level narcissism are by any means ethnocentric.

It has been suggested that ethnocentrism – when pertaining to discrimination or aggression based on the self-love of one's group; or, in other words, based on exclusion from one's self-perceived superior group – is an expression of collective narcissism. In this sense, it might be said that collective narcissism overlaps with ethnocentrism, depending on given definitions and the breadth of their acceptance.

In the world

In general, collective narcissism is most strongly manifested in groups that are "self-relevant", like religions, nationality, or ethnicity. As discussed earlier, phenomena such as national identity (nationality) and Nazi Germany (ethnicity and nationality) are manifestations of collective narcissism among groups that critically define the people who belong to them.

In addition to this, a group's extant collective narcissism is likely to be exacerbated during conflict and aggression. And in terms of cultural effects, cultures that place an emphasis on the individual are apparently more likely to see manifestations of perceived individual greatness projected onto social ingroups within that culture. And finally, narcissistic groups are not restricted to any one homogenous composition of collective or individually collective or individual narcissists. A quote from Hitler almost ideally sums the actual nature of collective narcissism as it is realistically manifested, and might be found reminiscent of almost every idea presented here: "My group is better and more important than other groups, but still is not worthy of me". Although, this is inconsistent with the interpretation given to collective narcissism by Golec de Zavala and colleagues. Those authors suggest collective narcissists invest their vulnerable self-worth in the exaggerated image of their group and therefore cannot distance themselves from the group through which they achieve self-importance.

Eduard Bernstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bernstein 

 

Eduard Bernstein
Bernstein c. 1890s
Member of the Reichstag from Brandenburg
In office 7 June 1920 – 20 May 1928
Constituency	Potsdam (Teltow-Beeskow-Charlottenburg)
Member of the Imperial Reichstag from Silesia
In office 13 January 1912 – 10 November 1918
Preceded by	Otto Pfundtner
Succeeded by	Reichstag dissolution
Constituency	Breslau-West
In office 31 October 1901 – 25 January 1907
Preceded by	Bruno Schönlank
Succeeded by	Otto Pfundtner
Constituency	Breslau-West
Personal details
Born	6 January 1850 Schöneberg, Kingdom of Prussia
Died	18 December 1932 (aged 82) Berlin, Free State of Prussia, German Reich
Political party	SDAP (1872–1875) SPD (1875–1917) USPD (1917–1919) SPD (1918–1932)
Philosophical work
Era	Modern philosophy 19th-century philosophy 20th-century philosophy
Region	Western philosophy German philosophy
School	Socialism
Main interests	Politics, economy, sociology
Notable ideas	Social democracy Revisionism

Eduard Bernstein (German: [ˈeːduaʁt ˈbɛʁnʃtaɪn]; 6 January 1850 – 18 December 1932) was a German social democratic politician and socialist theorist. A member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Bernstein is best known for his reformist challenge to Marxism known as evolutionary socialism or revisionism, in which he questioned the revolutionary predictions of Karl Marx and advocated for a gradual, parliamentary path to socialism. His political and theoretical work played a significant role in the development of modern social democracy and reformist socialism.

Born into a lower-middle-class Jewish family in Berlin, Bernstein became active in socialist politics in his early twenties. He spent years in exile in Switzerland and London during the period of the Anti-Socialist Laws in Germany, where he became a close associate of Friedrich Engels. During his time in London, his interactions with the reformist Fabian Society and his observation of the stability of late Victorian capitalism led him to question key tenets of orthodox Marxism.

After Engels's death in 1895, Bernstein began to publicly articulate his revisionist views. In his most influential work, The Preconditions of Socialism (1899, also known as Evolutionary Socialism), he rejected the Hegelian dialectical method and disputed the Marxist predictions of the inevitable collapse of capitalism, the disappearance of the middle class, and the increasing immiseration of the proletariat. Instead, he argued that socialists should work for gradual social and political reforms through democratic institutions. His famous aphorism, "The movement means everything to me and what is usually called 'the final aim of Socialism' is nothing," encapsulated his focus on practical, democratic progress over revolutionary goals.

Although his views were officially condemned by the SPD, which maintained its orthodox Marxist Erfurt Program, the party's practical policies were largely reformist, reflecting the reality Bernstein described. His work sparked major debates within the international socialist movement, pitting him and his supporters against orthodox Marxists like Karl Kautsky and radicals like Rosa Luxemburg. During World War I, Bernstein's principles led him to break with the SPD's pro-war majority and co-found the anti-war Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD), though he rejoined the SPD after the war. He served in the Reichstag during the Weimar Republic, where he continued to advocate for democracy and peace. He died in Berlin in late 1932, weeks before the Nazi seizure of power.

Early life and political beginnings

Eduard Bernstein was born in Schöneberg (now part of Berlin) on 6 January 1850, a time of political reaction in Germany following the failure of the Revolutions of 1848. He was the seventh of fifteen children born to Jakob Bernstein, a railway engineer, and his wife, Johanne. His family was of Polish-Jewish origin, though they had been secular for two generations; they celebrated Christmas as a German rather than a religious holiday. This environment fostered in Bernstein a skeptical worldview from a young age. The family's income was modest, placing them in the "genteel poverty" of the lower middle class, or petty bourgeoisie. His uncle, Aaron Bernstein, was a prominent liberal journalist and the author of popular science books.

At sixteen, Bernstein left school without finishing Gymnasium due to his family's financial situation and began an apprenticeship at a Berlin bank. He worked as a bank clerk from 1869 until 1878, a profession that provided a livelihood but did not capture his primary interests. His real education was self-directed, and he developed intellectual pursuits in theatre, poetry, and philosophy.

Bernstein's political awakening occurred during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871. Initially a patriot, he became sympathetic to the anti-war stance of socialist leaders August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht after they were accused of treason. In February 1872, after reading works by Ferdinand Lassalle and being particularly impressed by a speech from the socialist agitator Friedrich Fritzsche, Bernstein and his friends joined the Social Democratic Workers' Party, known as the "Eisenachers" for the town where they were founded. He quickly became a skilled public speaker and an active party member, undertaking grueling speaking tours and engaging in debates with the rival Lassallean socialist party.

The two most influential books on the young Bernstein were Karl Marx's The Civil War in France, an exaltation of the Paris Commune, and Eugen Dühring's Cursus der National- und Sozialökonomie. His enthusiasm for Dühring's work proved contagious, and he was instrumental in popularizing Dühring's ideas within the socialist movement, even introducing them to Bebel. This early attachment to Dühring's thought, a blend of positivism and idealism, would later be exorcised by Friedrich Engels's sharp critique, Anti-Dühring.

Amidst government harassment and internal divisions, the Eisenachers and the Lassalleans recognized the need for unity. In 1875, the two factions merged at a congress in Gotha. The twenty-five-year-old Bernstein was a delegate to the preliminary conference and participated in the creation of the unified party, which would become the Social Democratic Party (SPD). The resulting Gotha Program was a compromise between Marxist and Lassallean ideas, which drew a sharp critique from Marx himself. Bernstein later acknowledged that the Eisenachers, himself included, had an inadequate grasp of Marxist theory at the time.

Exile (1878–1901)

Bernstein in 1878

In 1878, following two assassination attempts on Emperor Wilhelm I, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck enacted the Anti-Socialist Laws, which banned socialist organizations, meetings, and publications. Just before the law took effect, Bernstein accepted an offer to become the private secretary to Karl Höchberg, a wealthy socialist sympathizer, and moved to Zurich, Switzerland, in October 1878. What he expected to be a temporary stay became an exile of over twenty years.

Zurich

In Zurich, Bernstein worked with Höchberg on various publishing projects. Their first enterprise, a reprint of Karl Christian Friedrich Krause's Quintessence of Socialism, aimed to convert the intelligentsia to socialism, a tactic of "permeation" that Marx disdained. During this period, Bernstein encountered Engels's Anti-Dühring, a book which he recalled "converted me to Marxism".

In 1879, Bernstein became embroiled in a controversy that caused serious friction with Marx and Engels, whom he had never met. He had a minor role in the publication of an anonymous article in a new Yearbook for Social Science, financed by Höchberg. The article, written by Karl Flesch and revised by Höchberg, criticized the SPD for its proletarian focus and its "hatred of the bourgeoisie". Marx and Engels were furious, believing the article represented a bourgeois takeover of the party's organ. Engels accused Bernstein of being a key figure in this "trio of Zurichers" and demanded that Höchberg be expelled from the party.

Despite this incident, the SPD established its official, albeit illegal, newspaper, Der Sozialdemokrat, in Zurich in September 1879. Bernstein was active with the paper from the start. Anxious to clear his name with Marx and Engels, he and Bebel traveled to London in December 1880. The visit was a success; Bernstein won the full confidence of the "Londoners", and his relationship with Engels grew into a close friendship and a lifelong correspondence. In January 1881, Bernstein was appointed editor of Der Sozialdemokrat. Under his leadership, and with Engels as a frequent adviser, the paper became, in Engels's words, "unquestionably the best newspaper this party has ever had." During his Zurich years, Bernstein became one of the key members of the SPD, and his circle of friends included future socialist luminaries like Karl Kautsky.

London

In 1888, under pressure from Bismarck, the Swiss government expelled the staff of Der Sozialdemokrat. Bernstein and his colleagues relocated to London, which became his home for the next thirteen years. He continued to edit the paper until the Anti-Socialist Laws lapsed in 1890. With the SPD now able to operate legally in Germany, the exiled paper was no longer needed, and Bernstein, still under indictment in Germany, found himself without his editorial post. He began making a living as a freelance writer and London correspondent for the SPD's new official newspaper, Vorwärts, and Kautsky's theoretical journal, Die Neue Zeit.

The 1890s were a crucial decade for Bernstein's intellectual development. He spent much of his time in the reading room of the British Museum, the same place Marx had worked for so long. He was responsible for the tactical sections of the SPD's new Erfurt Program of 1891, which was largely Marxist in its theoretical sections drafted by Kautsky. He also undertook a major historical work, Sozialismus und Demokratie in der grossen englischen Revolution (Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution), published in 1895 as the final volume of The History of Socialism. A pioneering study of the English Civil War from a social and economic perspective, the book was an original contribution to scholarship, particularly for his "discovery" of the communist thinker Gerrard Winstanley. His other major work of this period was a highly critical political biography of Ferdinand Lassalle, which aimed to dismantle the "Lassalle Legend" within the German labour movement.

Bernstein in 1895

Throughout his early years in London, Bernstein remained in the shadow of Engels, who was the preeminent authority on Marxism. When Engels died in August 1895, he named Bernstein as one of his literary executors, a sign of complete confidence. It was only after Engels's death that Bernstein felt free to publicly question the orthodox Marxism he had inherited. His time in England had a profound impact on his thinking. He observed a stable, prosperous capitalist society with strong democratic traditions and a reformist, rather than revolutionary, labour movement. He also established close relations with English socialists, most notably the Fabian Society, whose leaders included George Bernard Shaw and Sidney and Beatrice Webb. While Bernstein later denied that Fabianism was the direct source of his new views, and even criticised their "visionless pragmatism", the Fabians' gradualist, empirical, and ethical approach to socialism undoubtedly reinforced the direction of his own thought.

Evolutionary socialism

Cover of Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie (1899), 1906 edition

Bernstein's evolutionary socialism, a form of revisionist Marxism, developed from a series of articles he wrote for the SPD's theoretical journal, Die Neue Zeit, between 1896 and 1898, under the title Probleme des Sozialismus ("Problems of Socialism"). These culminated in his landmark book, Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie (1899), translated into English as The Preconditions of Socialism or Evolutionary Socialism. The book created an immediate storm of controversy within the international socialist movement.

Bernstein's critique of Marxism was comprehensive, targeting its philosophy, economic predictions, and political strategy. His central argument was that the reality of late 19th-century capitalism had diverged significantly from Marx's forecasts. This "moulting", as he called it, required socialists to reconcile their theories with the facts.

Philosophy

Bernstein rejected the dialectical materialsm that formed the philosophical core of Marxism, viewing it as a "snare" and a "treacherous element" that led to dogmatic and inaccurate predictions. He argued that the dialectical method, with its emphasis on contradiction and violent transformation, was a remnant of radical Utopianism that had no place in a scientific socialist movement. Instead of dialectical materialism, he advocated for a return to the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant and a greater emphasis on ethics.

For Bernstein, socialism was not a historical inevitability but an ethical ideal. It was something that ought to be, a goal to be striven for based on a commitment to justice and equality, rather than something that must be as a result of impersonal historical laws. This reintroduction of ethics into socialist theory was a direct challenge to Marxist determinism. He famously declared in a response to his critics:

I confess openly, I have extraordinarily little interest or taste for what is generally called the 'final goal of Socialism.' This aim, whatever it be, is nothing to me, the movement everything.

This statement, often taken out of context, was not a rejection of socialist goals but an assertion of the primacy of the democratic and ethical process—the "movement"—over dogmatic adherence to a single, predetermined outcome.

Economics

Bernstein's economic revisionism was based on his observation that capitalism was not collapsing but adapting and stabilizing. He presented statistical evidence to refute several key Marxist predictions:

• Concentration of capital: While Marx predicted that capital would become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, Bernstein argued that the number of property owners was in fact growing, thanks to the rise of joint-stock companies and a more differentiated class structure. He showed that small and medium-sized enterprises were proving resilient, not disappearing as Marx had forecast.

• Collapse theory (Zusammenbruchstheorie): Bernstein rejected the idea that capitalism was doomed to collapse through increasingly severe economic crises. He argued that the development of the credit system, cartels, and an improved world market had given capitalism greater adaptability and flexibility, making general crises less likely.

• Immiseration theory: The Marxist theory of the "growing misery" of the proletariat was, according to Bernstein, incorrect. He pointed to evidence that the working class in advanced industrial countries was experiencing an improvement in its standard of living. He also argued that the middle class was not vanishing but changing its character, with the rise of a "new middle class" of white-collar workers, technicians, and public officials.

Politics

From this revised analysis of capitalism, Bernstein drew radical conclusions for socialist political strategy. If capitalism was not on the verge of collapse, and if democracy was expanding, then the path to socialism was not revolution but gradual, peaceful, parliamentary reform. He argued that the SPD should "dare to appear what it is today: a democratic-Socialist reform party."

Bernstein saw democracy as both the means and the end of socialism. He advocated for the expansion of political and economic rights through the existing state, championing trade unions and cooperatives as key "democratic elements in industry". He rejected the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a "barbarian" and "atavistic" idea, arguing that socialism could only be achieved democratically. While he saw the necessity for the mass strike as a defensive weapon to protect democratic rights like the suffrage, he fundamentally believed in the power of gradual, "organic" evolution over violent upheaval.

Return to Germany and political career

After the warrant for his arrest was allowed to lapse, Bernstein returned to Germany in February 1901. He was now the intellectual leader of a significant, if controversial, movement within the SPD. He was in heavy demand as a public speaker, and in 1902 he was elected to the Reichstag representing the constituency of Breslau-West, a seat he won with broad support from across the party. He served in the Reichstag for most of the next three decades (1902–1906, 1912–1918, and 1920–1928). In parliament, he specialized in issues of taxation, international trade, and constitutional law.

His return intensified the "Bernstein Debates" within the SPD. At successive party congresses, particularly the one in Dresden in 1903, his theories were the subject of heated discussion. The party leadership, dominated by Bebel and Kautsky, officially condemned revisionism and reaffirmed the revolutionary goals of the Erfurt Program. However, the SPD's day-to-day practice continued to be largely reformist, and Bernstein's views found wide, if often unacknowledged, support, especially among trade union leaders and the party's southern German branches. Bernstein himself remained a loyal, though critical, member of the party, continuing to argue for a policy of democratic reform and alliances with progressive elements of the bourgeoisie.

World War I

Bernstein c. 1910s

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 confronted Bernstein and the SPD with their most severe test. Bernstein initially accepted the argument that Germany was fighting a defensive war against Tsarist Russia and, with a heavy heart, voted with the SPD majority to approve war credits on 4 August 1914. He had been deeply affected by the assassination of his friend, the French socialist leader Jean Jaurès, which he wrongly believed had been engineered by Russian agents.

However, as documentation of Germany's aggressive war aims came to light, Bernstein's position shifted dramatically. His Anglophile sentiments and his deep commitment to internationalism and truth led him to become a vocal opponent of the war. He began publishing articles denouncing German chauvinism and annexationist ambitions, which isolated him from his former revisionist colleagues and led to the termination of his long collaboration with the Sozialistische Monatshefte.

On 20 March 1915, he was among a minority of SPD deputies who left the chamber rather than vote for further war credits. In June 1915, he, Kautsky, and Hugo Haase published a manifesto, "The Demand of the Hour", which condemned the war as an imperialist venture. The growing split within the SPD became permanent in March 1916, when Haase and his followers were expelled from the parliamentary party. Bernstein followed them, and in April 1917, he became a founding member of the anti-war Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD).

Weimar Republic and final years

Bernstein (second from right) with the rest of the USPD Executive Board, December 1919

During the German Revolution of 1918–1919, Bernstein served as an assistant secretary in the Treasury Department under the provisional government formed by the SPD and USPD. Driven by his lifelong desire for party unity, he rejoined the SPD in early 1919 in a personal attempt to bridge the gap between the warring socialist factions, though the USPD prohibited dual membership and the move failed to inspire a larger reconciliation.

Throughout the Weimar Republic, Bernstein was a courageous voice for reason and democracy. At the 1919 SPD party congress, he argued against the widespread nationalist sentiment in his party, insisting on Germany's share of responsibility for the war and the necessity of accepting the Treaty of Versailles, despite its harshness. His unwavering commitment to truth earned him ridicule from his colleagues but underscored his integrity. He also became a staunch opponent of Bolshevism, which he viewed as a "brutalized" and dictatorial perversion of Marxism. His role was instrumental in drafting the SPD's reformist Görlitz Program of 1921, though this was largely replaced by the more orthodox Heidelberg Program in 1925, following the SPD's reunification with the remnants of the USPD.

As the Weimar Republic faltered, Bernstein found himself increasingly isolated. The party leadership was too preoccupied with its own version of Realpolitik to heed his warnings against the rising dangers of both right-wing reaction and communism. Upon his retirement from the Reichstag in 1928, he issued a manifesto with Kautsky urging the SPD to guard against "the deadly enemies of the republic", the alliance of great landowners, captains of industry, and the Communists.

Bernstein in 1932

Eduard Bernstein died in Berlin on 18 December 1932, at the age of 82. His funeral was the occasion for a mass demonstration against the rising Nazi Party. He was spared from witnessing the final collapse of the republic he had championed, as Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany six weeks later.

Legacy

Eduard Bernstein is regarded as one of the founders of modern democratic socialism and a primary figure in the history of revisionism. His critique of orthodox Marxism forced the international socialist movement to confront the discrepancies between theory and reality at the turn of the 20th century. Although his ideas were officially rejected by the SPD, they reflected the party's actual reformist practice and provided a theoretical basis for social democratic parties throughout Europe in the 20th century.

His work highlights the central "dilemma of democratic socialism": the tension between achieving radical social change and adhering to democratic, parliamentary means. He was unwavering in his conviction that socialism without democracy was a betrayal of its core principles. While critics like Rosa Luxemburg argued that his approach sacrificed the revolutionary goal of socialism for the sake of bourgeois reform, Bernstein insisted that a gradual, ethical, and democratic evolution was the only path compatible with a humane society. The historian Peter Gay concludes that Bernstein's greatest contribution was his profound honesty and his courage to "submit Marxist dogma to searching examination while not surrendering the Socialist standpoint".

Works

• Ferdinand Lassalle as a Social Reformer. Eleanor Marx Aveling, trans. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1893.
• Evolutionary Socialism: A Criticism and Affirmation. [1899] Edith C. Harvey, trans. New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1909. This book has also been translated into English as The Preconditions of Socialism.
• Cromwell and Communism: Socialism and Democracy in the Great English Revolution. H.J. Stenning, trans. London: Allen and Unwin, 1930.
• My Years of Exile: Reminiscences of a Socialist., trans. Bernard Miall, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1921. online free
• Selected Writings of Eduard Bernstein, 1900–1921. Prometheus Books, 1996.
• Marius S. Ostrowski (ed.), Eduard Bernstein on Social Democracy and International Politics: Essays and Other Writings. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
• Marius S. Ostrowski (ed.), Eduard Bernstein on the German Revolution: Selected Historical Writings. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
• Marius S. Ostrowski (ed.), Eduard Bernstein on Socialism Past and Present: Essays and Lectures on Ideology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021.
• Klaus Leesch: Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932). Leben und Werk. Frankfurt a.M./New York: campus-Verlag, 2024.

Primary sources

• Tudor, Henry Tudor and J. M. Tudor, eds. Marxism and Social Democracy: The Revisionist Debate, 1896–1898. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1988.