Gustav Gross on Dawson’s German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle (1888)

Gustav Gross’s review assesses William Harbutt Dawson’s biographical history of German socialism by distinguishing its value as an introduction from its limitations as historical scholarship. Gross grants that Dawson’s designation “biographical” signals a restricted ambition. Nevertheless, he establishes a demanding standard for understanding socialism’s development:

Eine solche könnte überhaupt nur auf der Basis einer eingehenden politischen und Wirtschaftsgeschichte unseres Jahrhunderts geschrieben werden, denn nur so könnte das volle Verständnis für die einzelnen Entwicklungsphasen des deutschen Sozialismus und für ihren Zusammenhang erlangt werden.

English translation: Such a work could be written at all only on the basis of a thorough political and economic history of our century, for only thus could a full understanding of the individual phases of development of German socialism and of their interconnection be attained.

For Gross, a history must explain the connections among successive phases through their political and economic conditions. Dawson instead supplies loosely connected biographical sketches with accounts of socialist doctrines. Gross questions Lassalle’s prominence because Dawson himself acknowledges his lesser theoretical importance relative to Marx and Rodbertus and the short-lived character of his practical influence. He tentatively attributes this imbalance to the greater availability of earlier studies of Lassalle.

The review then moves from organization to scholarly dependence. Gross argues that Dawson’s reliance on German predecessors is reflected in his neglect of posthumously published writings: Marx’s second volume of Capital is mentioned but not substantively treated, while the third volume of Rodbertus’s literary remains goes unmentioned. Dawson’s inclusion of Thünen among socialists and his placement of Weitling between Thünen and Marlo also expose, for Gross, the limitations of a rigid chronological arrangement.

The strongest criticism concerns the closing history of the “J. A. A.” and the German Social Democratic Party:

Hierbei hat sich der Verf. zumeist strenge an R. Meyers einseitige Darstellung gehalten, ja stellenweise dieselbe fast wörtlich übersetzt, ohne aber an dieser Stelle das Werk zu zitieren.

English translation: In this the author has for the most part kept strictly to R. Meyer's one-sided account, indeed has in places translated it almost word for word, without, however, citing the work at that point.

The objection combines interpretive bias with inadequate attribution: Dawson follows Meyer’s one-sided account and, Gross alleges, sometimes translates it almost literally without acknowledging the source at those points. For the period after 1875, Gross likewise finds the sources undisclosed, but explicitly leaves open whether Dawson consulted parliamentary records and socialist newspapers directly or through an unnamed intermediary.

Gross concludes that German readers will find nothing new, yet separates scholarly originality from the worthwhile dissemination of knowledge:

Damit soll aber das Verdienst des Verf., die Lehren des deutschen Sozialismus in zumeist richtiger Darstellung einem weiteren Kreise zugänglich gemacht zu haben, durchaus nicht geschmälert werden.

English translation: By this, however, the author's merit in having made the doctrines of German socialism accessible to a wider circle in a for the most part correct presentation is by no means to be diminished.

The review’s significance lies in this calibrated judgment: broadly accurate exposition deserves credit, but a connected history requires contextual explanation, engagement with available theoretical writings, and transparent use of sources.