This is a French view.  Germany is naturally the stronghold of Marxism, and the country where it has proved, up to a point, an unqualified success.  Although the Social Democratic Party was founded as an alliance between the followers of Marx and of Lassalle, on terms to which Marx himself violently objected, none the less the leadership of the party fell to those who accepted the teaching of Marx, and on that basis by far the greatest Socialist Party of the world has been built up.  Nowhere else did the ideas of Marx hold such unquestioned supremacy:  nowhere else had they such a body of loyal adherents, such a host of teachers and interpreters.  Only on the question of agricultural land in the freer political atmosphere of South Germany was there even a breath of dissent.  The revolt came from England in the person of Edward Bernstein, who, exiled by Bismarck, took refuge in London, and was for years intimately acquainted with the Fabian Society and its leaders.  Soon after his return to Germany he published in 1899 a volume criticising Marxism,[45] and thence grew up the Revisionist movement for free thought in Socialism which has attracted all the younger men, and before the war had virtually, if not actually, obtained control over the Social Democratic Party.

In England, and in Germany through Bernstein, I think the Fabian Society may claim to have led the revolt.  Elsewhere the revolt has come rather in deeds than in words.  In France, in Italy, and in Belgium and in other European countries, a Socialist Party has grown up which amid greater political opportunities has had to face the actual problems of modern politics.  These could not be solved by quotations from a German philosopher, and liberty has been gained by force of circumstances.  Nevertheless in many countries, such as Russia and the United States, even now, or at any rate until very recent years, the freedom of action of Socialist parties has been impeded by excessive respect for the opinions of the Founder, and Socialist thought has been sterilised, because it was assumed that Marx had completed the philosophy of Socialism, and the business of Socialists was not to think for themselves, but merely to work for the realisation of his ideas.

* * * * *

But mere freedom was not enough.  Something must be put in the place of Marx.  His English followers did not notice that he had indicated no method, and devised no political machinery for the transition; or if they noticed it they passed over the omission as a negligible detail.  If German Socialism would not suit, English Socialism had to be formulated to take its place.  This has been the life-work of the Fabian Society, the working out of the application of the broad principles of Socialism to the industrial and political environment of England.  I say England advisedly, because the industrial and political conditions of Scotland are in some degree different, and the application of the principles of Socialism to Ireland has not yet been seriously attempted.  But for England “Fabian Essays” and the Fabian Tracts are by general consent the best expositions of the meaning and working of Socialism in the English language.