Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen: Review of Heinrich Herkner’s Die Arbeiterfrage. Eine Einführung (1894)

Schullern’s review presents Herkner’s introduction as a scientifically balanced and publicly accessible contribution to social reform. Moving from a diagnosis of contemporary debate to an assessment of the book’s three parts, it endorses a unifying ethical principle: social institutions should enable an increasing share of humanity to develop its capacities freely. The labour question does not exhaust the broader social question, but its urgency makes informed discussion indispensable.

Schullern contrasts the growing dogmatic authority of Marx among workers with the instability of opinion among other social groups. He finds in Herkner a consistent alternative to both Marxism and defensive self-interest. Yet his opposition to Marxism includes recognition of its historical achievement:

Dieser letztere würde allmählich, vielleicht sehr langsam, an Anhängern verlieren, er würde vielleicht verschwinden, aber erst nachdem er seine hohe, welthistorische Mission erfüllt haben würde, die darin besteht, den socialen Gedanken im Gesellschaftsleben an die erste Stelle zu drängen.

English translation: This latter would gradually, perhaps very slowly, lose adherents; it would perhaps disappear, but only after it should have fulfilled its high, world-historical mission, which consists in forcing the social idea into the first place in the life of society.

Marxism’s possible decline thus depends on fulfilling, rather than dismissing, the social demands that sustain it. Herkner’s commitment to wider opportunities for individual development supplies the reviewer with a shared criterion for workers’ collective initiative and public intervention:

Von diesem Standpunkte muss sowohl die freie Thätigkeit der Arbeiter selbst, als auch die Einflussnahme des Staates auf die gesellschaftlichen und wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse ausgehen.

English translation: From this standpoint must proceed both the free activity of the workers themselves and the state's exertion of influence upon social and economic conditions.

Schullern praises the book’s plain language, ideal purpose, and measured consideration of competing proposals. Its accessibility does not, in his account, come at the expense of scholarly judgment, although some subjects—especially Rodbertus—receive insufficient attention.

Das Buch ist eine Fundgrube der Aufklärung für die weitesten Kreise und verdient es vollauf, dass dieselben aus ihm auch wirklich Aufklärung schöpfen; thun sie es, so werden viele, und insbesondere die grundlegenden Anschauungen des Verfassers wohl weithin Anerkennung finden.

English translation: The book is a treasure trove of enlightenment for the widest circles and fully deserves that these should indeed really draw enlightenment from it; if they do so, then many, and in particular the fundamental views of the author, will doubtless find wide recognition.

The subsequent survey gives substance to this recommendation. In the first part, “Sociale Geschichte,” Schullern singles out the reassessment of Napoleon I’s economic and social significance as an act of historical justice, notes the unfamiliar light cast on Napoleon III, and welcomes the sympathetic treatment of Owen. He particularly values the clarity and impartiality of the account of Germany’s social history.

The second part, “Sociale Theorie und Kritik,” connects the ethical labour question with assessments of Christianity, liberalism, and communism. Schullern finds the treatment of Christianity important but insufficient to explain fully the antagonism between workers’ movements and the churches. He approves Herkner’s historical understanding of liberalism: a necessary developmental phase whose achievements deserve recognition despite its severe defects. The examination of communism, principally through the Erfurt Programme, likewise gains force from avoiding exaggeration. Such mediation, Schullern observes, is likely to provoke committed partisans precisely because it exposes vulnerable points on opposing sides.

The third part, “Sociale Reform,” examines workers’ initiatives and state measures intended to promote upward class movement. Schullern especially commends its proposals for developing emerging legislation. His reservations remain specific: consumer cooperatives are inadequately characterized, and Schulze-Delitzsch deserves greater recognition. They qualify rather than overturn his favorable judgment.

The review’s significance lies in its conception of reform as both ethical commitment and informed practical judgment. Schullern treats historical understanding, balanced criticism, worker agency, and legislation as mutually supporting resources. His closing recommendation returns to the public purpose of the book: broader circulation could improve understanding of the social question and thereby strengthen the conditions for reform.