What do you think?
Rate this book
Evolutionary Socialism: A Critisism and Affirmation
Bernstein, Eduard
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1899
16 people are currently reading
936 people want to read
About the author
Eduard Bernstein
211 books24 followersSocial democratic theoretician and politician, a member of the SPD, and the founder of evolutionary socialism and revisionism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
July 25, 2020
This is such an important book, given its pride of place as a core text of revisionist Marxism. I was excited to finally read it. But I read it not long after I read Sheri Berman's Primacy of Politics (an excellent book on how social democracy developed out of revisionist socialist parties. I found that everything interesting had been expertly distilled by Berman. So much of the book consists of extremely dry economic argumentation to prove various shortcomings of Marxism (like the failure of capitalism to immiserate workers) that was doubtless necessary at the time, but is pretty obvious to a modern reader.
I also read Evolutionary Socialism right before reading Liberal Socialism, by Carlo Rosselli, and the contrast was jarring between the ideologically quite similar books. Rosselli wrote with passion and flourish that made Bernstein's droning tabulations all the more tedious.
Anyway, read the book of course if you're deeply interested or invested in social democracy, revisionist Marxism, liberal socialism, etc. But if you just encountered a few impressive passages and quotations (e.g., the one about the ultimate end of socialism being nothing and the movement being everything) then you've got most of the important stuff.
I also read Evolutionary Socialism right before reading Liberal Socialism, by Carlo Rosselli, and the contrast was jarring between the ideologically quite similar books. Rosselli wrote with passion and flourish that made Bernstein's droning tabulations all the more tedious.
Anyway, read the book of course if you're deeply interested or invested in social democracy, revisionist Marxism, liberal socialism, etc. But if you just encountered a few impressive passages and quotations (e.g., the one about the ultimate end of socialism being nothing and the movement being everything) then you've got most of the important stuff.
July 28, 2021
This was one of the the first Marxist books I read. Initially I gave it four stars but after returning to it now I lowered it to three.
The book starts with a good explanation of the ideas of Marx and Engels. However, it is somewhat insufficient when it comes to materialism and does not include dialectics. Marx’s and Engels’ full reflections on ontology only came to light when the Critique of the German Ideology was published, which was not until after this was written, though some material on it was in Anti-Dühring and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, though I can hardly blame Bernstein for not being able to reconstruct their full views. His explanation of Historical Materialism is beter but he emphasises the difference in formulation between the Manifesto and later texts, particularly the late Engels’ letters and the preface to Marx’s Critique of Political Economy while ignoring the great similarities between these later formulations and the ones from The Poverty of Philosophy.
In the second chapter Bernstein discusses economic trends and crises. He defends himself from criticisms by Rosa Luxemburg, successfully in my opinion, and discusses the role of financial institutions. His argument is, in short, that due to the development of medium-sized petty-bourgeois economy around more large-scale industrial activity the destruction of intermediate classes proceeds only very slowly. Combined with the spread of institutions that mediate, temporarily and to an extent, the class struggle and due to the stabilisation of financial institutions, which unlike Luxemburg makes it seem is in line with Marx’s theory, is making sure that an all-destroying crisis is put off to the distant future. He also connects this foreign markets in one passage though he of course never manages to make a full economic theory of imperialism and in other works went as far as defending imperialism. His aversion for direct and other forms of proletarian democracy shines through in some passages, though the anti-proletarian attitudes of some of his other works isn’t present here.
The third chapter is some rather boring material on cooperatives. His assertions on this seem fine, many Marxists seem to have been irked by his assertion that Marx did not have particularly much insight into this subject, even though I am not aware of any evidence Marx ever seriously investigated the topic and he didn’t get knowledge beamed into his brain directly from the universe. Strangely Bernstein makes similar assertions about internal divisions in classes, even though they had a whole terminology dealing with the question and extensively analysed it in The Revolution in France, Class Struggles in France, The 18th Brumaire and The Peasant Question in France and Germany. Bernstein’s attitude towards liberalism is not all together disagreeable though as someone heavily influenced by Stirner I don’t agree with a number of crucial elements though the denunciations of this seem to me too strong. Bernstein’s judgement that the modern state does not have to be smashed merely because national unity is not to be broken is not in line with Marxism and dealt with in a much better way by Lenin, this costs Bernstein’s book its fourth star.
All around this book is not terrible but not great either. It is outside of the Leninist mainstream. I think it should be read more and be taken more seriously, even though Bernstein later sank deeper and deeper into unproletarian politics.
The book starts with a good explanation of the ideas of Marx and Engels. However, it is somewhat insufficient when it comes to materialism and does not include dialectics. Marx’s and Engels’ full reflections on ontology only came to light when the Critique of the German Ideology was published, which was not until after this was written, though some material on it was in Anti-Dühring and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, though I can hardly blame Bernstein for not being able to reconstruct their full views. His explanation of Historical Materialism is beter but he emphasises the difference in formulation between the Manifesto and later texts, particularly the late Engels’ letters and the preface to Marx’s Critique of Political Economy while ignoring the great similarities between these later formulations and the ones from The Poverty of Philosophy.
In the second chapter Bernstein discusses economic trends and crises. He defends himself from criticisms by Rosa Luxemburg, successfully in my opinion, and discusses the role of financial institutions. His argument is, in short, that due to the development of medium-sized petty-bourgeois economy around more large-scale industrial activity the destruction of intermediate classes proceeds only very slowly. Combined with the spread of institutions that mediate, temporarily and to an extent, the class struggle and due to the stabilisation of financial institutions, which unlike Luxemburg makes it seem is in line with Marx’s theory, is making sure that an all-destroying crisis is put off to the distant future. He also connects this foreign markets in one passage though he of course never manages to make a full economic theory of imperialism and in other works went as far as defending imperialism. His aversion for direct and other forms of proletarian democracy shines through in some passages, though the anti-proletarian attitudes of some of his other works isn’t present here.
The third chapter is some rather boring material on cooperatives. His assertions on this seem fine, many Marxists seem to have been irked by his assertion that Marx did not have particularly much insight into this subject, even though I am not aware of any evidence Marx ever seriously investigated the topic and he didn’t get knowledge beamed into his brain directly from the universe. Strangely Bernstein makes similar assertions about internal divisions in classes, even though they had a whole terminology dealing with the question and extensively analysed it in The Revolution in France, Class Struggles in France, The 18th Brumaire and The Peasant Question in France and Germany. Bernstein’s attitude towards liberalism is not all together disagreeable though as someone heavily influenced by Stirner I don’t agree with a number of crucial elements though the denunciations of this seem to me too strong. Bernstein’s judgement that the modern state does not have to be smashed merely because national unity is not to be broken is not in line with Marxism and dealt with in a much better way by Lenin, this costs Bernstein’s book its fourth star.
All around this book is not terrible but not great either. It is outside of the Leninist mainstream. I think it should be read more and be taken more seriously, even though Bernstein later sank deeper and deeper into unproletarian politics.
October 14, 2018
I have read some famous marxist authors, and one thing in common to most of them is the attack against a certain guy named Bernstein. So I needed to see who is this Bernstain and what is the deal with him.
From the start I understood why this guy is so hated; he is willing to self criticize his marxist dogma. He, compared to the other marxist authors actualy is a smart man and can put in writing a solid and easy to understand presentation of the tenets of marxism (clear as Engels's Scientific Socialism) in the first part of the book. He than proceeds to compare facts and reality with theory and expectations. You could say that he criticize and rejects aspects of marxism and materialism, despite the fact that he makes it sound like he offers a up to date interpretation of Marx (and thus Marx's work is still valid...). He clearly rejects violence and violent means as still valid once general voting rights are obtained; he points out that they are not actually necessary; that through democracy and the current state of capitalism, socialism steadily rises. He is for socialism as an outcome of popular vote, evolving slow and out of the practical needs of the people (thus the historical inevitability of socialism is maintained ). He dose actualy claime that he builds marxist on the foundations of Marx and Engels.
But despite his lack of radicalism he is still for etatism; he claims at one point that socialism is the heir of classical liberalism. He is still an economic illiterate at one point scribes economic crises to overproduction and actualy dismisses credit expansion as a cause of it (Rosa Luxemburg appears more smart than him on this point).
I wanted to give him 2 stars... but no... just because he has been mocked by Lenin, Kausky and others, this those not mean he is better.
PS: Interesting how he also, like Kausky dose appeals to views held by Engels, after Marx's death, to legitimize his views. Marx compared to Engels is a much more fuzzy writer, full of contradictions and a huge pretense to be an economist. Engels is much more clear and precise.
From the start I understood why this guy is so hated; he is willing to self criticize his marxist dogma. He, compared to the other marxist authors actualy is a smart man and can put in writing a solid and easy to understand presentation of the tenets of marxism (clear as Engels's Scientific Socialism) in the first part of the book. He than proceeds to compare facts and reality with theory and expectations. You could say that he criticize and rejects aspects of marxism and materialism, despite the fact that he makes it sound like he offers a up to date interpretation of Marx (and thus Marx's work is still valid...). He clearly rejects violence and violent means as still valid once general voting rights are obtained; he points out that they are not actually necessary; that through democracy and the current state of capitalism, socialism steadily rises. He is for socialism as an outcome of popular vote, evolving slow and out of the practical needs of the people (thus the historical inevitability of socialism is maintained ). He dose actualy claime that he builds marxist on the foundations of Marx and Engels.
But despite his lack of radicalism he is still for etatism; he claims at one point that socialism is the heir of classical liberalism. He is still an economic illiterate at one point scribes economic crises to overproduction and actualy dismisses credit expansion as a cause of it (Rosa Luxemburg appears more smart than him on this point).
I wanted to give him 2 stars... but no... just because he has been mocked by Lenin, Kausky and others, this those not mean he is better.
PS: Interesting how he also, like Kausky dose appeals to views held by Engels, after Marx's death, to legitimize his views. Marx compared to Engels is a much more fuzzy writer, full of contradictions and a huge pretense to be an economist. Engels is much more clear and precise.
June 27, 2014
I cannot be called a dogmatic anything, and since I have no formal economic nor econometric training my review of this book is probably not worth the bits & bytes I am using to write it up. My faulty analogy might be something like: Bernstein is a Talmudic rabbi who interprets and re-interprets the Prophet Marx in the reality of changing social conditions. His commitment to the advancement of the poor & working classes in undeniable, whatever the lock-step Marxists claim.
I do think, however, he did NOT foresee the current re-casting of society into haves and have-nots. He spoke of the increasing ranks of wealthy as identified purely from the tax rolls. All well and good, and I agree with him that violent revolution is NOT a method to obtain equality, but his hopefulness in sharing the wealth falls flat in this age of concentrated/contracting wealth.
I am a social democrat, democratic socialist, whatever. How anyone can support Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc., (or for that matter a Cheney, Bush, Nixon) is beyond me.
If you read it, you will, I suppose, have to highlight many passages that just simply cry out like a clarion call for justice -- economic and political.
I do think, however, he did NOT foresee the current re-casting of society into haves and have-nots. He spoke of the increasing ranks of wealthy as identified purely from the tax rolls. All well and good, and I agree with him that violent revolution is NOT a method to obtain equality, but his hopefulness in sharing the wealth falls flat in this age of concentrated/contracting wealth.
I am a social democrat, democratic socialist, whatever. How anyone can support Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc., (or for that matter a Cheney, Bush, Nixon) is beyond me.
If you read it, you will, I suppose, have to highlight many passages that just simply cry out like a clarion call for justice -- economic and political.
June 26, 2019
Bernstein writes in his preface how he wanted to expand on a letter he wrote but it be simple enough for working people, then he blathers on for 230 pages (in what could’ve been said in like 30) about why stock options for employees is socialism and why Marx and Rosa Luxemburg are wrong, all the while looking quite foolish considering the hundred years that came after this was published. As others have noted, he has a few fair criticisms of Marxian bits and pieces. But when you’re this wrong about so much else..... A dismal read— I skipped the last third of the impossibly long third chapter entirely. Considering how stupid Bernstein sounds in the first two chapters, I don’t know why I let myself get that far.
August 9, 2019
Well worth reading, or wading through depending upon your vantage point.
First I must point out that this little book is VASTLY different in tone in German. This english translation is turgid and clunky. In parts it is almost incomprehensible in its awkward, never-ending dependent clauses and pseudo-clarifications. This is because it was originally written in high academic German, which delights in such words as : “ProliterianGemeinschaftarbeitskraftethos”.
But it’s well worth reading.
Herein Bernstein honestly laid out the actual fallacies in Marx and Engels’ theory of the future of socialism. He ultimately argued that socialists would do better to take power via the ballot box and peaceful, democratic action rather than a violent, bloody revolution, which many Orthodox Marxists yearned for. Bernstein pointed out that since the advent of the Communist Manifesto, (1848- fifty years before) Kapitalism in fact had broadened its appeal and the bourgeoise had expanded almost beyond comprehension. Far from Monopoly-Kapitalists becoming fewer (-as Marx had theorized, stating that Kapital would monopolize), in fact the wealth base had broadened, such that in Europe millions of workers now owned shares or businesses either via direct purchases or through pension schemes from governments and unions. He greatly admired the British Working movement which crystallized into the Labour Party, especially the cooperative movement.
Bernstein still thought that Marxs’ notion of surplus labor value equals profits was a correct analysis of economics, but argued that Socialists could syphon off this expropriated value back to the Proletariat via social programs paid for by taxation......and this is what the SPD did. Socialists could thereby reclaim expropriated value via negotiated, thoughtful politics.
Bernstein also pointed out (correctly) the practical impossibility of “ collective industrial style socialism” in the farming sector and thought Cooperative farms ‘ mere theory’ that would founder upon the rocks of reality. It’s a pity Mao did not read him more carefully or that Marx never had backyard chickens.
Bernstein was proud of his good friends’ Marx and especially Engels’ leadership and philosophical analysis. Lenin, an Orthodox Marxist elitist, hated the gentle, practical Bernstein and described him as “a wet noodle”.
In the end, Bernstein inspired the European welfare state, including mass schooling, healthcare and social services. He died three weeks before Hitler took power.
Lenins’ legacy was 150,000,000+ murdered people and a political-economic system that imploded under the weight of population growth, violence, corruption, technological change and mostly, an inability to adapt.
First I must point out that this little book is VASTLY different in tone in German. This english translation is turgid and clunky. In parts it is almost incomprehensible in its awkward, never-ending dependent clauses and pseudo-clarifications. This is because it was originally written in high academic German, which delights in such words as : “ProliterianGemeinschaftarbeitskraftethos”.
But it’s well worth reading.
Herein Bernstein honestly laid out the actual fallacies in Marx and Engels’ theory of the future of socialism. He ultimately argued that socialists would do better to take power via the ballot box and peaceful, democratic action rather than a violent, bloody revolution, which many Orthodox Marxists yearned for. Bernstein pointed out that since the advent of the Communist Manifesto, (1848- fifty years before) Kapitalism in fact had broadened its appeal and the bourgeoise had expanded almost beyond comprehension. Far from Monopoly-Kapitalists becoming fewer (-as Marx had theorized, stating that Kapital would monopolize), in fact the wealth base had broadened, such that in Europe millions of workers now owned shares or businesses either via direct purchases or through pension schemes from governments and unions. He greatly admired the British Working movement which crystallized into the Labour Party, especially the cooperative movement.
Bernstein still thought that Marxs’ notion of surplus labor value equals profits was a correct analysis of economics, but argued that Socialists could syphon off this expropriated value back to the Proletariat via social programs paid for by taxation......and this is what the SPD did. Socialists could thereby reclaim expropriated value via negotiated, thoughtful politics.
Bernstein also pointed out (correctly) the practical impossibility of “ collective industrial style socialism” in the farming sector and thought Cooperative farms ‘ mere theory’ that would founder upon the rocks of reality. It’s a pity Mao did not read him more carefully or that Marx never had backyard chickens.
Bernstein was proud of his good friends’ Marx and especially Engels’ leadership and philosophical analysis. Lenin, an Orthodox Marxist elitist, hated the gentle, practical Bernstein and described him as “a wet noodle”.
In the end, Bernstein inspired the European welfare state, including mass schooling, healthcare and social services. He died three weeks before Hitler took power.
Lenins’ legacy was 150,000,000+ murdered people and a political-economic system that imploded under the weight of population growth, violence, corruption, technological change and mostly, an inability to adapt.
November 19, 2018
Mostly a criticism of the failures of marxism, with hope for a liberal socialism but without much of a positive plan for it. Many of the direct criticisms of marx hold true but concerning socialism and the economy in general Bernstein could not anticipate the Russian Revolution, the last hundred years of changes to the farming industry, or the neoliberal expansion of financial capitalism into our lives.
June 21, 2015
I admire Bernstein's rejection of dogmatism, but I worry that his alternative to revolutionary Marxism amounts to capitulation.
November 17, 2021
A late 19th Century leader of the SPD who isn't a doctrinaire Marxist! Imagine that! It's so refreshing to read ideas that aren't just irrational regurgitations of the works of Marx. A reasonable balance between cooperativism, trade unionism, and democratism, supported by historical events and current statistics - a dream come true! That is, until he starts being imperialistic. That brings him down several notches, unfortunately. But apart from that, a highly reasonable treatise.
February 5, 2023
Uma obra histórica com razão! Neste livro, Eduard Bernstein procede à análise da teoria marxista, pretendendo atualizá-la às circunstâncias do seu tempo e, de propósito, fundando um novo ramo da família socialista na figura da social-democracia.
Acusado de "revisionismo", o contemporâneo de Rosa Luxemburgo faz mesmo isso, revê a teoria de Marx e compara com os dados mais recentes, chegando à conclusão que o caminho para a emancipação da classe trabalhadora não é a revolução violenta, mas a reforma através da máquina democrática.
Mesmo não concordando com certas teses apresentadas, a obra é excelentemente organizada, os pontos bem argumentados e claros. Entende-se perfeitamente o ponto de vista de Bernstein e como a sua teoria, a seu ver, é comprovada pelos factos.
No entanto, a obra peca em parte por ser um pouco pesada, sendo certos pontos um pouco desgastantes para os que não estão familiares com a gíria marxista ou económica.
Mesmo assim, é uma obra de valor inegável, a qual deve ser de paragem obrigatória para qualquer interessado da política e/ou economia.
Acusado de "revisionismo", o contemporâneo de Rosa Luxemburgo faz mesmo isso, revê a teoria de Marx e compara com os dados mais recentes, chegando à conclusão que o caminho para a emancipação da classe trabalhadora não é a revolução violenta, mas a reforma através da máquina democrática.
Mesmo não concordando com certas teses apresentadas, a obra é excelentemente organizada, os pontos bem argumentados e claros. Entende-se perfeitamente o ponto de vista de Bernstein e como a sua teoria, a seu ver, é comprovada pelos factos.
No entanto, a obra peca em parte por ser um pouco pesada, sendo certos pontos um pouco desgastantes para os que não estão familiares com a gíria marxista ou económica.
Mesmo assim, é uma obra de valor inegável, a qual deve ser de paragem obrigatória para qualquer interessado da política e/ou economia.
September 12, 2023
"The further development and elaboration of the Marxist doctrine must begin with critism of it"
Socialism from the beginning emphasizes the need to see everything in a scientific way, which means everything needs to be compatible with reality. In this great book, that is what Eduard Bernstein does. We know that because of his passion to adjust socialism to correspond with reality and the scientific method, he became criticized by other thinkers. They say the way of thinking in Bernstein theory betrays the doctrine of Marxism, but in reality, what Bernstein does is remove all the ways of thinking in Marx, who stress doctrine and utopian theory, because basically Marxism is the scientific approach and always corresponds with reality. This book is very important for us in the 21st century who want to solve this world with Marxism because this book is going to give you a great fundamental of how scientific theory in Marxism can make you understand the problem in this world.
Socialism from the beginning emphasizes the need to see everything in a scientific way, which means everything needs to be compatible with reality. In this great book, that is what Eduard Bernstein does. We know that because of his passion to adjust socialism to correspond with reality and the scientific method, he became criticized by other thinkers. They say the way of thinking in Bernstein theory betrays the doctrine of Marxism, but in reality, what Bernstein does is remove all the ways of thinking in Marx, who stress doctrine and utopian theory, because basically Marxism is the scientific approach and always corresponds with reality. This book is very important for us in the 21st century who want to solve this world with Marxism because this book is going to give you a great fundamental of how scientific theory in Marxism can make you understand the problem in this world.
November 6, 2023
work of proto-Marxology from an SPD rightist, arguing against notions including i) the notion that capital is increasingly concentrated ii) that the working class is increasing in size iii) that revolution (or perhaps even socialism!) is possible or desirable
was most struck by the extent of its nihilism; Bernstein affords no space to the ingenuity intelligence or capacity of the working class, he more or less just stops short of calling them ignorant and incompetent to manage their own affairs.
read symptomatically this is the Communist Manifesto re-packaged for the self-exoneration of those who spend the next century averting their eyes; the English and the German proletariat were not interested in revolution; they had their trade unions, their political parties and their living standards were, in relative terms, increasing. their political leadership was cut to cloth
was most struck by the extent of its nihilism; Bernstein affords no space to the ingenuity intelligence or capacity of the working class, he more or less just stops short of calling them ignorant and incompetent to manage their own affairs.
read symptomatically this is the Communist Manifesto re-packaged for the self-exoneration of those who spend the next century averting their eyes; the English and the German proletariat were not interested in revolution; they had their trade unions, their political parties and their living standards were, in relative terms, increasing. their political leadership was cut to cloth
May 26, 2024
Still worth a read if you are interested in the debates, but you have to read Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution if you read this. Engels' response is also important because he rejects Bernstein's claim that this is all founded in Engels' own theories; that socialism can be achieved without revolution. He outright rejected this in an article and letter that followed. Overall, Bernstein is a social democratic cuck that gets things very blatantly wrong in a number of places but it is well thought out in *some* places and is worth a read if you are a history nerd or seeking to better understand Marxist thought.
June 22, 2025
I have to say that this book was an interesting read to learn more about democratic socialism. He makes some practical points, even as a liberal political economist. My only real big issue while reading this was that it had a lot of fluff. To be honest, after reading each chapter, I would use ChatGPT to give me summaries, as the fluff made it hard to understand his simple arguments. Apparently, to structuralist political economists, he is very controversial, and now I am more curious on why that would be the case. Overall, a pretty decent read, and gives the background for many arguments of democratic socialists.
August 20, 2023
Sollte man als Marxist mal gelesen haben, zumal Bernstein hier schon alle Eckpfeiler der sozialdemokratischen Ideologie bis heute setzt. Ob sich das dann kritische Theorie, Eurokommunismus, oder sonst wie nennt, letztlich wiederholen sie alle den alten Bernstein.
Das Ganze ist recht primitiv, reagiert aber auf eine wirkliche qualitative Veränderung des Kapitalismus, auch wenn Bernstein nicht begriffen hat, um was es sich dabei handelte.
Das Ganze ist recht primitiv, reagiert aber auf eine wirkliche qualitative Veränderung des Kapitalismus, auch wenn Bernstein nicht begriffen hat, um was es sich dabei handelte.
May 4, 2025
Marxists recoil at the mention of Bernstein and for good reason. This book is an excellent takedown of Marxism economics and crisis theories. Many of the observations Bernstein makes still hold up today when looked into.
November 14, 2022
This long form essay is short and very informative, but man do Marxist writers make you work for it. So hard to get through these texts.
August 19, 2023
Very elitist
January 2, 2025
def read before reform or revolution
September 18, 2023
Over 120 years later, it is safe to say that Bernstein´s revisionism has been validated by events far beyond those of Lenin or Mao (the jury may still be out on Trotsky). Read today, Bernstein´s theses on the pursuit of socialism within the context of parliamentary democracy sound remarkably prescient. Some of the issues covered her (Bernstein´s polemic with Kautski, reflexions on the role of unions or on agriculture reform) are inevitably dated, and Bernstein´s "prudent" approach to colonial policy would today have him expelled from ever party with a seat in any European parliament right up to the far right, with the possible exception of Jobbik. But his comparison of liberalism (in the Europeans sense) with socialism is brilliant and his advocacy of pragmatic, incremental socialism the basis of a century of progressive government policies in Europe and beyond. And his writing is much more elegant than that of any other classical Marxist theorist (again, maybe Trostsky might give him a run for his money)
October 15, 2024
A pesar de tener en cuenta los tres capítulos escritos por Bernstein, creo que lo mejor del libro es el breve resumen que se hace en torno al debate sobre las crisis cíclicas entre Bernstein, Kautsky y Rosa Luxemburgo.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews