MIA > Archive > Lassalle > Voices of Revolt
Written: As a speech in German, delivered April 6th, 1862.
Published in English: 1927.
Translated by: Jakob Altmeier (presumed).
Source: Voices of Revolt: Speeches of Ferdinand Lassalle. International Publishers, first edition, 1927, New York, USA. 94 pages.
Transcription and Markup: Bill Wright for marxists.org, February, 2023
When is a written constitution a good one and a permanent one?
Obviously only in the one case, gentlemen, . . . when it corresponds to the true constitution, the real alignment of forces that obtains in the country. When the written constitution is not in agreement with the real constitution, there will be a conflict that cannot be remedied and that will necessarily result in the destruction of the written constitution, which is a mere sheet of paper, as opposed to the real constitution, the actual distribution of forces prevailing in the country.
What should therefore have been done at that time?
In the first place, it was necessary to make not a written constitution, but a real constitution, i.e., the true alignment of forces in the country should have been changed, and changed to the advantage of the citizens.
No doubt it had just become apparent, on March 18 (1848), that the power of the people was already at that moment greater than the power of the standing army. After a long and bloody struggle, the troops had been obliged to retire.
But I long ago pointed out to you the important relation existing between the power of the people and the power of the standing army, as a result of which the actually much smaller power of the standing army is in the long run, nevertheless, more effective than the — actually — greater might of the nation.
This difference is due, if you will remember, to the fact that the power of the nation is an unorganized power, while the power of the standing army is an organized power which is daily available and ready to take up the struggle again, and which, therefore, in the long run, is more effective and must be able to maintain the field against the greater — but unorganized — power of the people, which is capable of united action only in rare moments of great enthusiasm.
If, therefore, the victory gained on March 18 was not to be nullified without recall in its advantages for the people, the victorious moment should have been made use of in order to transform the organized power of the standing army in such a manner as to make it impossible for it ever to be used again as a mere instrument of force by the Monarch against the people. . . .
It was necessary, furthermore, to provide that all the lower officers, extending at least as high as Major, should not be appointed from above, but should be elected by the troops themselves, so that the posts of officers should not be held by persons hostile to the people, thus making it possible once more to transform the army into a blind instrument of monarchical power. In addition, the army should have been made subject to the regular civil courts except for specifically military offenses, so that by this means it might have been made a common possession of the people and not a thing standing apart, a separate caste.
Besides, all the artillery, the cannons which are, of course, useless except for the national defense, should have been placed in the custody of the municipal authorities elected by the people, except for such guns as were absolutely necessary for military maneuvers. A portion of this artillery should, furthermore, have been used in order to build up artillery sections of the national militia, thus putting the cannons — this very essential constituent of the constitution — under the power of the people.
Of all this, gentlemen, nothing was done in the Spring or in the Summer of 1848, and can you marvel, therefore, that the March revolution was again neutralized and deprived of its resources in November, 1848? Surely you cannot; the latter step was merely a necessary consequence of the fact that no real change had been made in the actual alignment of forces.
The princes, gentlemen, are far better served than you! The servants of the princes are not mere orators, as those of the people often are. They are practical men who know by instinct what is at stake.
Surely, Herr von Manteuffel[a] was not a great orator; but he was a practical man! When he had dispersed the National Assembly[b] and planted the artillery in the streets in November, 1848, what did he do next? Did he begin by drawing up a reactionary constitution? God forbid! He had plenty of time for that! In December, 1848, he even gave you a fairly liberal constitution, at least on paper. But what did he really set about doing in November; what was the first measure? Why, gentlemen, you must remember it very well, he began by disarming the people, by taking away their weapons. You see, gentlemen, the victor’s chief concern is to disarm the vanquished, unless he wishes to see the battle renewed at any moment. . . .
I have just shown that in the year 1848 none of the measures were adopted which would have been necessary for the purpose of changing the actual relations of forces existing in the country, or of transforming the army from an army serving princes into an army serving the people. . . .
The making of a written constitution was the last consideration; that may be done at any time in thrice twenty-four hours; that was the last thing that concerned any one, and besides, the making of such a constitution too early was equivalent to doing nothing at all.
To transform the real, actual relations of forces within the country, to intervene in the executive arm, and to intervene so thoroughly and remodel it so completely as to make it impossible for it ever again effectively to oppose the will of the nation — this was the task confronting the men of 1848, the task that had necessarily to be performed before a written constitution could offer any promise of durability. . . .
If you have in your garden an apple-tree and proceed to hang on it a label which declares: “This is a fig-tree,” have you thereby transformed the tree into a fig-tree? You have not, even though you should gather all your servants and all the inhabitants of the country around and have them all declare aloud with due solemnity: “This is a fig-tree”; the tree will remain what it always has been. And when the next year comes around, the truth will [come] out. The tree will bear apples and not figs.
Quite similar, as we have seen, is the case with the constitution. What is written on this sheet of paper is of no value at all if it does not correspond to the real condition of affairs, to the actual alignment of forces.
On the scrap of paper of December 5, 1848, the King had stated his acceptance, of his own volition, of a great number of concessions, all of which, however, were in contradiction with the true constitution, namely, with the real, actual instruments of power which the King held unabated in his hands. With the same necessity that may be observed in the operation of the law of gravity, the real constitution, therefore, carried off the victory, step by step, over the written constitution.
Therefore the King was obliged — although the constitution of December 5, 1848, had been accepted by the Revision Committee — at once to undertake the first change, namely, the Three Class Election Law[c] of 1849, which was arbitrarily interpolated in the constitution. With the aid of the Chamber[d] created by the Election Law, certain very essential changes in the constitution had then to be made, so that it might be sworn to by the King in the year 1850; and after he had sworn to it, then was the time for the changes really to begin! Every year since 1850 has been marked by some such change. Even a flag that has passed through a hundred battles cannot present so ragged and perforated an appearance as our constitution.
—From Ueber Verfassungswesen (“Concerning the Theory of the Constitution”), a speech delivered at Berlin, on April 6, 1862.
[a] Manteuffel, Otto von (1805-1882): Prussian reactionary statesman, who dispersed the National Assembly in Berlin, November, 1849.
[b] National Assembly: Several National Assemblies were held in Germany in 1848 and 1849 to determine the political and social conditions under which the unification of the Empire should take place. All these bodies deliberated without result, however.
[c] Three-Class Election Law: An election system in which the suffrage right was divided into three classes, in accordance with the amount of taxes paid by the voter; this system was introduced in Prussia in 1849 and remained in force (with extensive alterations dating from 1893) until the Revolution of November 9, 1918.
[d] Chamber: This word is used by Lassalle to designate the Lower House of the Prussian Legislature (the “Diet”).
Last updated on 14 February 2023