follows at a far slower pace, that it nowhere overtakes the expansion of capitalism, but only with difficulty hobbles after it. And while the extension of the latter goes ever faster and faster, the former comes always more and more nearly to a standstill.
If, however, the progress of labour protection is small in extension, in depth it is almost nothing. In 1847 in England, under the pressure of the Chartist movement and the rapid impoverishment of the textile workers, the ten hours day was won for women and young persons; that is, practically for the entire workers in the textile industry. Where have we advanced since then over the ten hours day?
The Second Republic in France had in 1848 settled the working day for all workers: in Paris at ten hours, in the rest of France at eleven hours. When recently Millerand (on paper, and in a very inadequate way) got the Chamber to pass a ten hours day for those trades in which women and children work along with men (consequently not for all industrial establishments), this was looked on as a remarkable achievement, of which only a Socialist Minister could have been capable. And yet he gave less than the English legislation of 50 years ago, since he allowed the ten hours, day to apply even to children, for whom, in England, as early as 1844 a day of six and a-half hours was fixed.
Already the Geneva Congress of the "International" in 1866 had demanded an eight hours day as the first step towards all fruitful social reform. Thirty-six years later, at the last Congress of French Socialists at Tours, a delegate was found to oppose the acceptance of the eight hours day as one of our immediate demands. He wished simply "measures preparatory to the introduction of the eight hours day." And the man was not laughed at, but was able to stand as a candidate in Paris at the last elections!
It would seem that the only progress we make in social reform is as regards the modesty of the social reformers.
But how is that possible in face of the increase of Socialist representation on public bodies? The answer is simple, when this fact is not taken alone, but the reverse side of the medal is also considered. Certainly the number of Socialist deputies grows, but at the same time the bourgeois democracy decays more and more. Very often this last manifests itself externally in the decrease of its vote at the elections, but more often it is shown in its inner decay. It becomes more and more cowardly, and weak of character, and only knows one means of combatting reaction—that is, to declare itself ready to carry, out reactionary measures itself—a thing it really does when it gets into power. That is the present-day method of Liberalism of gaining political power.
When Bismarck saw his rule tottering, he prolonged the legislative periods of the Reichstag from three to five years. It was a desperate reactionary measure which roused a storm of indignation. In France, however, the last Radical Ministry of Republican
