Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-01-30

While the current Of popular thought Is
maniiestly flowing in the direction OF the
social and economic emancipation OF tho
working classes, u Ia proper that we present,
for the consideration Of those who are inter
ssted In the great philanthropic movements OF
The age, a comparative view Of The two rival
German systems for the amelloratlon Of the
condition Of down-troddon humanity. We
refer 70 the two systems OF labor reform ro-
spcctlvely advocated In Germany by schulse-
| Drllt,ch and Ferdinand Lassallc.
Both Of these economists profess 10 have In
view The improvement Of the condition Of the
workIugman. Both agros that the tollcr
,bould be better fed, clothed aud housed; that
he .bould be able 10 cultivate more fully bis
moral, Intellectual and social nature; that ho
sbould be able 10 provide moro fully for the
education Of his children aud the general
comfort aud happiness Of his family. But
thoy differ In opinion with regard 10 the
means by which these results are to be at
tanned. schulEo- Delltsch maintains
First. That each individual must by his
own unaiIcd efforts, furnish everything that
Is required 10 supply his noccsslties.
Second. That II his individual efforts can
not accomplish this, associated effort can.
In other words, at tho point where individual
effort proves insufficient associated effort
should begin; and that by such comblna-
ton OF individual power and means every
thing can be done which ls necessary and
proper to be done for the material welfare Of
the laboring man.
Third. That II Is no part Of the duty Of the
State 10 legislale upon the labor question:
that labor has no right TO demand anything
more from tho State than FREQ competition
equality before the law, and the largest lib
erty Of private enterprise.
Tho foregoing propositions contain al
that Is deemed essential In schulzo-Dc
famous System Of "self-help." In opposition
10 this theory, Lassalle maintained
First. That the worklngman Is not In Q
condition 10 help himself by individual effort
nor can he do so by associated effort for the
reason that he docs not possess the material
means With which 10 carry the principle o.
association Into effect. ...
Second. That free competition must b
abollahed, aud the different branches Of labo
organized by the State, and made subject u
liz own control aud direction.
Third. That universal suffrage Is the mean
BY which worklngmen are to enforce the re
cognition Of their political and social rights
II will be observed that the theory Of Las
sale Is In direct opposltlon to that Of schuiEc
Dclltsch, who assumes that laboring men ar
able TO help themselves II not az individuals
then certainly as associations OF individuals
He would shut them entirely out Of the polli
lcal world, telling them that they have moth
Ing 10 expect from the State and adylsln
them not TO mcddle with politics.
Lassalle held, on the other hand, that th
laborlng man was not In a condition to hel
himself, and therefore urged him 10 emplo
the ballot for the purpose of securing III
rights withheld from him. The system {
schulEe- Delltsch does not contemplate u
political enirAnchlsement Of the Worklngna
a. preliminary to hiS social and econom
emancipation, and herein lies the featur,
which distinguishes 1t from the opposi
system 81 Lassalle, which contemplates Il
exercise OF political power by tho workinI
man and the organization Of separate AZ
distinct party, based upon the wants and i
terosts Of productive Industry.