Letter to Karl Marx, September 11, 1867

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 11 September 1867


First published abridged in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Bd. 3, Stuttgart, 1913 and in full in MEGA, Abt. III, Bd. 3, Berlin, 1930
Part of this letter was published in English for the first time in: Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Letters on 'Capital', New Park Publications, London, 1983
Published in English in full for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 42


ENGELS TO MARX

IN LONDON

Manchester, 11 September 1867

Dear Moor,

The congress really does appear to have been swept away in the French tide this time, the number of Proudhonist resolutions is really far too large.[1] It is good that it will be coming to Belgium next time, by then it will perhaps be possible to do something in North Germany as well, and then, with the help of the English, to dam up the flood. Meanwhile, whatever they resolve there is more or less just wasted breath as long as the CENTRAL COUNCIL remains in London. Once again notre cher[2] Philipp Becker appears to have committed some of his unpremeditated blunders, for which one must forgive the old agitator when he has no one to guide him.[3]

That Eccarius wrote the reports in The Times must be kept secret.[4] In view of the manner in which the editors have trimmed his story, it could do him enormous harm. The next time that he reports to the paper, he will have to consider more carefully to what extent his humour can be exploited by the bourgeois editors to cast RIDICULE on the whole business and not just on the few

crapauds.[5]

Since you are in contact with Vermorel, can you not moderate the fellow's asininities with regard to Germany? It is really too much if the jackass is demanding that Bonaparte should become liberal, bourgeois liberal, and then start a war to liberate Germany from the tyranny of Bismarck![6] These crapauds, who will have to handle Germany with great delicacy even if they do make a revolution, believe that but a slight turn toward liberalism would enable them to revert to their old roles. I regard it as most important, particularly in the event of a revolution, that these gentlemen should become accustomed to treating us d'égal à égal[7]

According to them, Bismarckism in Germany is an inherent characteristic of Germany, which they must destroy by intervening, but their own Bonapartism is a mere accident and could be terminated just by a change of ministers and transformed into its opposite.

The great Schweitzer has been happily elected with the assistance of the pietists[8] of Elberfeld and Barmen, and will now have the opportunity to bowdlerise various points from your book[9] in the 'Reichstag'. You may wager your life that he will do so. However, it can only do good and will afford us much entertainment; once the book is out, only good can come of such things.

Apropos of Barmen, I am reminded of Siebel. The poor devil is dreadfully sick again and is once more having to leave Barmen, though I do not know whereto; it is possible he will not live out the winter. He must be very bad, so I cannot count on him raising any cry for your book in the newspapers. He has written me a very DESPONDING letter.

The TRADES OUTRAGE COMMISSION'S[10] conclusions here are entirely farcical and are no different from those reached 7 years ago. If they do not produce anything better, they might as well pack their bags. Just imagine seeing BRICKMAKING AND BRICKLAYING treated as the chief industries of Manchester!

The defects which have become apparent in the tests carried out on the Chassepot rifle here are the very ones which had already been discovered in Berlin and which Bölzig told me of in Hanover. At that time, I thought that they had deliberately allowed faulty specimens to fall into the hands of the Prussians, but now it rather looks as though there is something in it, in which case the rifle is not half as good as the Prussians' needle-gun.

Meissner's people in Leipzig appear to be taking an inordinately long time to send the book out. Still no notices anywhere. Do you think I should attack the thing from the bourgeois point of view, to get things under way? Meissner or Siebel would surely get that accepted by a paper.[11] As for it being prohibited,[12] I don't believe it myself, but one can never swear that the zeal of some government official will not get the better of him, and once a case has been brought, you could rely on your friend Lippe.

Kindest regards to your wife and the girls, who I presume are back now.[13]

The Diplomatic Reviews received with thanks.

Your

F. E.

  1. ↑ The Lausanne Congress of the International was held from 2 to 8 September 1867. Marx took part in the preparations but he was unable to attend the congress, since he was busy reading the proofs of Volume One of Capital.
    The Congress was attended by 64 delegates from six countries (Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Italy). Apart from the report of the General Council (see present edition, Vol. 20), the Congress heard reports from the local sections which showed the increased influence of the International on the proletariat and the growing strength of its organisations in different countries. The delegates holding Proudhonist views, especially those from France, sought to change the orientation of the International's activity and its programme principles. Having managed, despite the efforts of the General Council's delegates, to impose their agenda on the Congress, they sought to get the Congress to revise the Geneva Congress resolutions in a Proudhonist spirit. They did succeed in carrying through a number of their own resolutions, in particular the one on co-operation and credit, which they regarded as the principal instruments of changing society by means of reform.
    However, the Proudhonists failed to achieve their principal aim. The Congress retained as valid the Geneva Congress resolutions on the economic struggle and strikes. The Proudhonist dogma on abstaining from political struggle was countered by the resolution on political freedom passed by the Lausanne Congress which emphasised that the social emancipation of the working class was inseparable from its political liberation. The Proudhonists likewise failed to seize the leadership of the International. The Congress re-elected the General Council in its former composition and retained London as its seat.
  2. ↑ our dear
  3. ↑ Contrary to the position held by Marx and the General Council of the International towards the bourgeois-pacifist League of Peace and Freedom (see Note 461), the Lausanne Congress, largely owing to the efforts of Johann Philipp Becker and other members of the Geneva Section of the International as well as the French Proudhonists, decided by majority vote to send an official delegation from the IWMA to the constituent congress of the League. On 9 July 1867, before the Lausanne Congress, the general meeting of the Geneva Section of the International decided to join the League's programme and expressed their full confidence to its organisers; several members of the Section, including Becker and Dupleix, joined the League's Organising Committee.
  4. ↑ A reference to the first of Eccarius' series of articles about the Lausanne Congress of the International published in The Times, No. 25909 of 6 September 1867. The other articles of the series were published in The Times, Nos. 25911-25913 of 9-11 September 1867. In his articles Eccarius made ironical comments on the muddled views of the French Proudhonist delegates and their verbosity.
  5. ↑ toads; philistines (here Engels refers to the French Proudhonists, delegates to the Lausanne Congress)
  6. ↑ A. Vermorel, 'La prochaine campagne de la Prusse', Le Courrier français, No. 84, 9 September 1867.
  7. ↑ as equals
  8. ↑ The Low Church—a trend in the Anglican Church which laid special emphasis on Christian morality; its following originally consisted predominantly of the bourgeoisie and the lower clergy.
    Pietism—a trend in the Lutheran Church that emerged in Germany in the seventeenth century. Distinguished by extreme mysticism, it rejected rites and attached special importance to personal religious experience.
  9. ↑ the first volume of Capital
  10. ↑ The Royal Commission to Make Inquiry Respecting the English Trade Unions was set up in February 1867 because the ruling classes were anxious about the mounting trade unions' activity and hoped that such inquiry would help to outlaw the trade unions or at least restrict the scope of their activity. At the same time an anti-trade union campaign was launched in bourgeois newspap ers. The trade unions, supported by the General Council of the International, responded with meetings all over the country and a national conference in London on 5-8 March 1867. After the inquiry the Royal Commission failed to make any serious charges against the trade unions, but it hindered their complete legalisation (the legal protection of their funds, and the recognition of their right to fight strike-breakers and to support strikes organised by other trade unions).
  11. ↑ To break the conspiracy of silence with which official bourgeois academics met the publication of Volume One of Marx's Capital, Engels resorted to a kind of stratagem by writing a number of reviews for some bourgeois newspapers which looked as if penned by an unbiased bourgeois scholar. The reviews were published in Die Zukunft, Elberfelder Zeitung, Düsseldorfer Zeitung, Staats-Anzeiger für Württemberg and others (see present edition, Vol. 20).
  12. ↑ See this volume, pp. 417 and 420 21.
  13. ↑ Ibid, pp. 396 97 and 424.