This old out-of-print classic book covers the battle between liberal democracy and "social democracy" over half a century (which is almost how long it took me to read the book) after 1800. Despite the effort required and the sometimes excessive detail, this is an enormously insightful book. Basically those who wanted progressive change were divided between two opinions: (1) the revolutionary vanguard knows best what the people want and so should implement authoritarian "people's democracy, vs. (2) just let people have individual freedom, i.e. universal suffrage, free speech, human rights, etc. and people will implement themselves what they want. Almost everybody though that only (1) could solve the "social question" of poverty. Yet a tthe same time, almost everybody hoped or feared that universal suffrage would lead to massive redistribution and confiscation of the private property of the rich. Almost everybody was wrong on both counts -- (1) was a bloody disaster, while (2)led to moderation -- capitalism with social protection and gradual reform -- and (2) made more progress on the "social question" than (1) ever did.