GHDI logo

Social Democrats Discuss the State’s Social Insurance Policy (1890)

page 2 of 3    print version    return to list previous document      next document


This result of my observations which I have just given, and to support which I could bring plenty of proof from an attentive study of the latest development of the social democratic movement, which aimed to bring about changes in the conditions of the mine operatives, was forced upon me in a very clear and convincing manner at one of the meetings of our Social-Democratic Electoral Association. On that evening we had a lecture, chiefly for the information of the members, from the editor* of the Social-Democratic Press in Chemnitz, upon the Old Age and Invalid Insurance Act, not yet in force. The subject was, on the whole, scientifically treated. Two conclusions were reached – that the new Act was in many respects insufficient, and by no means a panacea for the wage-earner’s troubles, or a complete solution of the labour problem, and also that they must not take alarm at this, but must accept what was now offered to them, and at the same time work hard for gradual amendments to the Act. He ended by saying that there must be no more useless remonstrance and grumbling. In spite of everything there was a good sound kernel to the Labour Insurance Acts, and it must be their chief task to get rid of the shell. Thus he courageously expressed a feeling very general among the working men, but which rarely ventured into the light of day after the social-democratic party had pronounced its official dictum concerning the insurance legislation as it stood. To-day working men gratefully acknowledge the plainly evident benefits of these Acts, although they take them as matters of course. If they are complained of in any wise, so far as I could see, it was only in regard to particular defects, like the three days deduction from the beginning of every illness, or else on account of difficulties of administration, for which those entrusted with the details of execution were alone to blame. One case which came to my knowledge during a visit to a sick comrade had especially irritated him and his family. It was the case of a Bohemian girl, speaking but little German, who had lodged in this family during the preceding summer, at work – as it often happens in Chemnitz – on a building. She was taken ill, and the physician who was called, instead of treating her, made haste to send her home to her well-to-do parents as speedily as might be. This was very displeasing to her landlady, who had taken good care of her. She looked into the matter, and found that this girl, as well as a great number of other working women, had never been reported at the Sick Insurance Office. The builder, her employer, and the physician of the Sick Insurance Fund, shared equally in the blame and the – profit! so said my informant. But I cannot vouch for the truth of the story.

[ . . . ]


* Editor no longer. [Footnote from Paul Göhre, Three Months in a Workshop. A Practical Study.]

first page < previous   |   next > last page