Comrade Bebel, who was received with loud and hearty cheers, said: Comrades, after the long and able speech which you have just heard from our comrade Zetkin, I should have thought that the debate would have come to a close. I quite agree that our comrade Mensing, as our guest, had an undoubted right to speak, but I cannot see for the moment why I should say anything. But the officials at this table have decided otherwise, and they wish me to say a few words to you. It was of no use for me to protest, so here I am. I see once more how I have been compelled to do what women wish.
I have once more been strengthened in the opinion that this question of Woman Suffrage can only be properly considered and decided from a radical standpoint. Social-Democracy can have no policy except one directed by principles. Freedom and equality for all must be our motto in Parliament, on the platform, and in the press, and in that spirit we must live and act. It is only in that way that we can win over the mass of the people to our side, and exercise a powerful influence which finally will help us to achieve what we desire. Certainly it often happens in Parliament that we ask ourselves the question whether we should insist fully on our principal demands, or whether we should allow some of them to go by, and the Opportunist policy is ever before us. People think that if we asked for less, we should more easily get it; but in my political career in Parliament, which now extends over nearly 40 years, I have made the discovery, which is no less true in private life, that modesty is an ornament, but one often gets on better without it. This remark is often quoted by members of the middle classes. We might make modest demands, and they would not be complied with unless we had a strong force behind to back them up. Behind our principal demands there are our principles, which are strengthened by our force. We are ready to meet our opponents. They are ready to shamelessly repel if we ask with modesty. In the last weeks and months I have often heard about the weakness of Social-Democracy. There is no falser word. I fearlessly assert that in the German Empire there is no more powerful party in existence than ours. Social-Democracy rules the whole political and social life, both at home and abroad. Without its existence we should still be far from attaining much we now have. As an example of this truth, I may speak of the progress of the woman question in the last 15 years. The Centre in the nineties opposed with all its power our demand that women should be free to attend lectures on all subjects in all universities. But before two years had passed one of the most Conservative members of the Centre, Freiherr von Hertling, declared, with great force, that he was quite in favour of women studying whatever they wished. This is a good example of the influence that may be exercised by a powerful party which really knows what it wants.
Another question is the right of forming unions and of holding meetings. In many States, even in reactionary Saxony, women and men have equal rights on this matter. In other States—and Prussia is naturally foremost in the cause of reaction—the right of women to form unions has been much crippled. Some progress in this question has also been made by the Centre. Now that party is ready to declare, not indeed that women should have freedom to form political unions, but that the millions of women who are struggling in industry for existence should have liberty to form unions and associations, and that no impediments should be placed in their way to prevent them from combining together. These victories show how we should work if we wish to be successful. The question of obtaining for women universal, equal, secret and direct Suffrage is looked upon somewhat askance by middle-class parties. We need not wonder much at this, because in many middle-class circles there is a good deal of dislike to universal, equal, secret and direct Suffrage for men, and a very influential class thinks that this Suffrage should at the first good opportunity be subverted or weakened. These people are naturally not prepared to grant the franchise to women. But, nevertheless, I venture to prophesy that in Germany we shall extend this franchise to women before it shall be taken away from men. I will venture to say that the proposal to do that cannot succeed, and I am sure it would be very imprudent to attempt it, because if it were done all men who have the vote, and who would by the proposal be injured, would raise such a protest and engage in such a struggle as Germany has never seen. And just as the Centre in 1898 declined to follow one of its members when he proposed then the law on penitentiaries, so I do not think it will care to shake up our great mass of voters by trying to curtail the franchise. But on the other hand, as discontent increases in the mass and the power of Socialism grows, it is possible, in order to weaken our voting power, that our enemies might try to get the support of women, because, undoubtedly, there are a large number of them who are not friendly to the Social-Democratic organisation. Reckoning on this—I will not consider to-night why it is so—and that women are often indifferent, and will either be influenced by Conservatives or by clergymen, the majority may think that the granting of Woman Suffrage would be a disadvantage to the Socialists. That is undoubtedly right. But it will be our own fault if, when women get the vote, they are against us. All the reasons which are urged to-day against Woman Suffrage were formerly used against granting the vote to men. I myself, 43 years ago, as a member of the Builders’ Union, spoke against Universal Suffrage on the ground that working men were not properly educated. That has, in fact, been shown to be true, for now, after having Universal Suffrage in Germany for nearly 40 years, we still have nearly seven and a-half millions of votes against us. There is no doubt that the great majority of these men are working men who vote against the interests of their own class. But no one of our party has, therefore, thought it necessary to speak against Universal Suffrage, but we have gone on agitating and trying to convince people more and more that Social-Democracy is the only cure for the evils of life. Already we have three millions of voters on our side, and I hope that we may get four, five, and six millions, and become the majority. Then when the Reaction calls the women to its aid as a last chance, then we men must work not only among our sex but also among the women. Then the last anchor which holds the middle-class society will give way.
In Belgium, in Austria, in Sweden, the position of women is more backward than in our country. Those who know what power the priest still has in some Catholic countries near Germany will understand why our comrades did not think that Woman Suffrage was advisable there at present. Yet I do not think that in those countries the Reaction was prepared to give Universal Suffrage to men and to women. But, on the other hand, it would have done our cause a great deal of good if our comrades themselves had agitated for this, and thus have made the reactionaries appear unfriendly to woman. If, then, the question had really become one of practical politics, they could have said: “We were the first in favour of this Woman Suffrage.” But I will not enter here into any polemic with our foreign comrades; I have only felt myself compelled at this moment to give the arguments on both sides as briefly as possible. We can discuss this matter next year at the International Congress at Stuttgart.
For myself I have no doubt in the matter, if we wish to succeed—and we must succeed—we cannot do so if we put our principal demands in the background, and declare that we only expect to get some of our demands. I hold that to be bad tactics, and that is why I am glad that on this occasion the question of Woman Suffrage was argued fairly and openly, and I beg of you to unanimously adopt the resolution which has been read. You thus will pledge the party to carry on the struggle, and, sooner or later, to be victorious.
Frau Wengels, of Berlin, moved the closure.
Frau Braun, of Berlin, wished to speak on behalf of English supporters of Woman Suffrage.
The closure was adopted.
The resolution was unanimously adopted, and it was also decided to print as a pamphlet a full report of the speeches.
Translated by Jacques Bonhomme.