36
provided with an explanatory sentence, but it can only create confusion. The great majority of the party have reached the conviction that that which constitutes the essential part of the "iron law of wages," the necessary proletarianization and expropriation of the wealth of the producing laborer by the possessors of the instruments of production, is clearly and correctly expressed throughout the whole principal part of the platform.
The idea that those who possess the instruments of production have in these the means for enslaving, exploiting and expropriating their fellow-men who are found not in possession of these things, runs like a red thread through the new platform.
Further, the watchword of "a reactionary body" has been dropped. One or the other side would have been glad to retain it. It is true that all opponents in a class conflict are to us in the relation of "a reactionary body," and that the expression was often pertinent and has done good service. It may stand in a manifesto or it may be spoken of in a commentary, but it does not belong in a platform. First, it is not true that all other parties are "a reactionary body," and, second, the expression is so unscientific that it must be avoided in a platform that lays claim to being scientific. It is a truth which is stated in the platform that all other parties stand on the principle of capitalism and therefore are at enmity with us, who would destroy capitalism.
Further, you will not find in the draft the word "labor product," which had become very dear to the former Lassallians, and, through Lassalle's writings, to the Eisenachers also. The sentence that "to the laborer belongs his product" was long ago discarded, yet many would have retained the expression "labor product." It is perfectly correct to speak of private capitalistic therefore does not belong in our platform.
