Letter to Carlo Cafiero, July 28, 1871

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 28 July 1871


First published in La Società, No. 4, 1951. Translated from the Italian. Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 44


ENGELS TO CARLO CAFIERO[1]

IN NAPLES

London, 28 July 1871 122, R.P.R. N.W.

Dear Cafiero,

I have received your letter of the 12th, and I hope you have received the one I sent to Naples a few days before,[2] containing the Rules of the Association, the deliberations of the Geneva and Brussels congresses, the second[3] edition of the address on the civil war in France, the addresses on the Franco-Prussian war, the Association's Inaugural Address of 1864, etc., etc. These documents will certainly suffice to explain to you what the rules and principles of our society are and the means which the General Council has available to act in the name and on behalf of the society. I have once again received the Plebe of Lodi, the bulletin on Caporusso and the issue of Roma del Popolo containing Mazzini's attack on us.[4]

As for the facts relating to Caporusso which have been published and subsequently quoted in your letter, they would seem to be sufficient to make him incapable of harming us in the future. If he were to dare to present himself again to the public as a representative of the working class, the story of the 300 lire[5] would be made public and that would erase the last traces of his influence. We are pleased to hear that there is no sign of the Bakuninist sect over there. We had been led to believe the reverse because the Swiss Bakuninists always asserted it to be the case. They repeated it constantly and since we received no reply from Naples to our letters we believed it. We had no address in Naples other than that of Caporusso, to whom at least 3 letters were written by our French secretary E. Dupont in Marx's presence, but Caporusso must have suppressed them. If you think it is worth the trouble, ask Caporusso about those letters. Besides, no replies from Naples were ever received, and if those letters which were sent were addressed, as you say, directly to the Council, it is only too evident that, between them, the Italian, French and British police would have prevented them from arriving.

You are right to dwell on the moment of reflexion (in which I recognise with pleasure the very voice of old Hegel, to whom we are all so indebted)[6] and to say that the Association cannot be satisfied in its work with the mere assertion of Article 1 of the Rules, a principle which, unless developed, will remain a mere negation, the negation of the right of the aristocratic and bourgeois classes to 'exploit' the proletariat. In fact we must go much further, we must develop the positive side of the question, how the emancipation of the proletariat is to take effect, and thus the discussion of different opinions becomes not just inevitable but necessary. As I say, this discussion is going ahead constantly not only within the Association but also in the General Council, where there are Communists, Proudhonists, Owenists, Chartists, Bakuninists, etc., etc. The most difficult thing is to get them all together and ensure that the differences of opinion on these matters do not disturb the solidity and stability of the Association. In this we have always been fortunate, with the sole exception of the Swiss Bakuninists, who with true sectarian fury always dared to impose their programme on the Association, both by direct means and indirectly, by forming a special international society with its own General Council, its own congress, and all this within the great International itself. When this was attempted in the form of the Alliance de la démocratie socialiste de Genève the Council replied as follows (22 December 1868):

'According to these documents (the Programme and Regulations of the Alliance[7] ), the said Alliance is merged entirely in the International, at the same time as it is established entirely outside this Association. Besides the General Council of the International, elected at the Geneva, Lausanne and Brussels congresses, there is to be, in line with the initiatory rules (of the Alliance), another Central Council in Geneva, which is self-appointed. Besides the local groups of the International, there are to be the local groups of the Alliance, which through their national bureaus, operating outside the national bureaus of the International, shall ask the Central Bureau of the Alliance to admit them into the International. The Alliance Central Committee thereby takes upon itself the right of admittance to the International.

'Lastly, the General Congress of the International Working Men's Association will have its parallel (doublure) in the General Congress of the Alliance, for, as the initiatory rules say,

'"At the Annual Working Men's Congress the delegation of the Alliance of Socialist Democracy, as a branch of the International Working Men's Association, shall hold public meetings in a separate building."

'Considering:

'That the presence of a second international body operating within and outside the International Working Men's Association would be the infallible means of its disorganisation;

'That every other group of individuals, residing anywhere at all, would have the right to imitate the Geneva initiatory group (of the Alliance) and, under more or less plausible excuses, to bring into the International Working Men's Association other international associations with special missions;

'That the International Working Men's Association would thereby soon become a plaything for intriguers of any nationality and any party;

'That, moreover, the Rules of the International Working Men's Association admit only local and national branches into its ranks (see Art. 1 and Art. 6 of the Rules);

'That sections of the International Working Men's Association are forbidden to adopt rules or administrative regulations contrary to the General Rules and Administrative Regulations of the International Working Men's Association (see Art. 12 of the Administrative Regulations);

'That the matter has been prejudged by the resolutions against the Ligue de la Paix, adopted unanimously at the Brussels Congress. (This league had invited the International to join it, and this was our answer to these bourgeois)[8] ;

'That in these resolutions, the Congress declares that the Ligue de la Paix had no raison d'être, because after its recent declarations its aim and its principles were identical with those of the International Working Men's Association; that numerous members of the initiatory group of the Alliance, in their capacity as delegates to the Brussels Congress, voted for these resolutions;

'the General Council of the International Working Men's Association unanimously agreed:

'1) All articles of the Rules of the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy defining its relations with the International Working Men's Association are declared null and void;

'2) the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy may not be admitted as a branch of the International Working Men's Association.'[9]

I do not think there can be any disagreement on this point, namely that the International cannot permit another, sectarian International to exist within its own organisation. There is not the slightest doubt that all future Congresses and General Councils will energetically oppose the organisation of such intrigues within our own ranks and it would be good if our friends in Naples, at least those of them that have links with Geneva, understood this: The Bakuninists are a tiny minority within the Association and they are the only ones who have at all times brought about dissension. I am referring mainly to the Swiss, because we had little or nothing to do with the others. We have always allowed them to have their principles and to promote them as they thought best, so long as they renounced all attempts at undermining the Association or imposing their programme on us. In this way they will see that the workers of Europe will not be made the playthings of a little sect. As for their theoretical views, the General Council wrote to the Alliance on 9 March 1869[10] citing Article 1 of the Rules:

'Since the sections of the working class in different countries find themselves in different conditions of development, it necessarily follows that their theoretical notions, which reflect the real movement, should also diverge. The community of action, however, called into life by the International Working Men's Association, the exchange of ideas facilitated by the public organs of the different national sections, and the direct debates at the General Congresses, are sure by and by to engender a common theoretical programme. Consequently, it belongs not to the functions of the General Council to subject the programme of the Alliance to a critical examination. It is not our task to find out whether it is or is not an adequate expression of the proletarian movement. All we have to know is whether its general tendency does not run against the general tendency of our Association, viz., the complete emancipation of the working class.'

I have given you these extensive quotations in order to prove the unfoundedness of any accusation that the General Council would be overstepping the limits of Article 1 of the Rules. In its official powers regarding the admission or refusal of divisions, it certainly cannot act in this way. But as regards discussions of theoretical points, the Council desires nothing more ardently than this. From discussions of this sort the Council hopes to arrive at a general theoretical programme acceptable to the European proletariat. At all our theoretical congresses, the discussions have taken up by far the largest part of the time, but it should be noted that in these discussions Bakunin and his friends have played a very small role. In its official papers too the General Council has gone much further than Article 1. Read all the addresses that have been sent to you,[11] and in particular number 5, the one on the civil war in France, where we declare ourselves in favour of communism, a fact which will no doubt have displeased the many Proudhonists in the Assembly. We were able to do this because we were led to it by the capitalist slanderers of the Paris Commune. No document has been issued by the General Council which does not go beyond Article 1. But the Council can go beyond the official programme of the Association only insofar as circumstances are able to justify it. It cannot give any section the right to say: you have broken our statutes; you are officially proclaiming things which are not in the Rules of the Association. You say that our friends in Naples are not content with mere abstraction, that they want something concrete, that they are not satisfied with anything except equality, social order instead of disorder. Good; we are willing to go further. There is not a single man in the General Council who does not support the total abolition of social classes and there is not a single document of the General Council which is not in accordance with this aim. We must free ourselves from landowners and capitalists, and for this end promote the development of the associated classes of agricultural and industrial workers and all the means of production, land, tools, machines, raw materials and whatever means exist to support life during the time necessary for production. In this way inequality must cease. And to bring this about we need the political supremacy of the proletariat. I think that is concrete enough for our friends in Naples. At the same time, since others are performing our role in working the bad soil, the General Council cannot be expected to send out incendiary statements at every other moment, statements which would please a good many of our members while certainly displeasing the rest. If however a real conjuncture arises, then we show our strength, as in the case of the address on the civil war in France. As for the religious question, we cannot speak about it officially, except when the priests provoke us, but you will detect the spirit of atheism in all our publications. Moreover, we do not admit any society which has the slightest hint of religious allusion in its statutes. Many wanted to apply, but they were all invariably rejected. If our friends in Naples were to form a society of atheists and admitted only atheists, whatever would happen to their propaganda in a city where, as you yourself say, it is not only God that is omnipotent but also St Januarius, who needs to be handled with kid gloves.

I am enclosing a letter for C. Palladino[12] containing expressions of solidarity with the Naples Section, as you requested. Please pass it on to him.

Now for Mazzini. I communicated his article in Roma del Popolo to the Council last Tuesday.[13] I shall send you the report published on the discussion in a few days.[14] For Italy, however, it is desirable that the following be published[15] :

'Mazzini says:

"This Association, founded in London some years ago and with which I refused to collaborate from the start... a nucleus of individuals which takes it upon itself directly to govern a broad multitude of men of different nations, tendencies, political conditions, economic interests and methods of action will always end up by not functioning, or it will have to function tyrannically. For this reason I withdrew and shortly afterwards the Italian workers' section withdrew."'

Now for the facts. After the foundation meeting of our association on 28 September 1864, as soon as the Provisional Council was elected in public assembly, Major L. Wolff presented a manifesto and a number of rules drawn up by Mazzini himself. Not only was there no objection in these drafts to governing a multitude directly, etc., not only did he not say that this effort 'if it is to work at all, will have to function tyrannically', but on the contrary, the rules were conceived in the spirit of a centralised conspiracy, giving tyrannical powers to the central body. The manifesto was in Mazzini's usual style: la démocratie vulgaire, offering the workers political rights in order to preserve intact the social privileges of the middle and upper classes. This manifesto and draft statutes were subsequently thrown out. But the Italians (their names are listed at the end of our Inaugural Address) remained members until the said question was reopened with respect to certain French bourgeois democrats who wanted to manipulate the International. When they were refused admission, first Wolff[16] and then the others withdrew and we finished once and for all with Mazzini.[17] Some time afterwards, the Central Council, replying to an article by Vésinier, stated in the Liège newspaper that Mazzini had never been a member of the Association and the drafts of his manifesto and statutes had been rejected.[18] You will have seen that Mazzini has made a frenzied attack on the Paris Commune in the British press too, which is just what he always does when the proletarians rise up; after their defeat he denounces them to the bourgeoisie. After the insurrection of June 1848 he did the same thing, denouncing the insurgent proletarians in such offensive terms that even Louis Blanc wrote a pamphlet against him. And Louis Blanc has since told us several times that the June insurrection was the work of Bonapartist agents.[19]

If Mazzini calls our friend Marx a 'man of corrosive... intellect, of domineering temper', etc., etc., I can only say that Marx's corrosive-domination and his jealous nature have kept our Association together for seven years, and that he has done more than anyone else to bring it to its present proud position. As for the break up of the Association, which is said to have begun already here in England, the fact is that two English members of the Council,[20] who had been getting on too close terms with the bourgeoisie, found our address on the civil war too strong and they withdrew.[21] In their place we have four new English members[22] and one Irishman,[23] and we reckon ourselves to be much stronger here in England than we were before the two renegades left. Instead of being in a state of dissolution, we are now for the first time being publicly recognised by the entire English press as a great European power, and never has a greater sensation been caused by a little pamphlet than that produced here in London by the address on the civil war, the third edition of which is about to appear.

I repeat that it is highly desirable that this reply to Mazzini should be published in Italian and that the Italian workers are shown that the great agitator and conspirator Mazzini has no other advice for them than this: educate yourselves, teach yourselves as best you can (as if this were just up to them), strive to create more consumer cooperatives (not just producer ones) and trust in the future!!

At last Tuesday's[24] meeting the Council resolved that a private conference of delegates from the various nations of workers of the International Association should be held on the third Sunday in September (17 September). This resolution was passed because a public congress is now impossible, in view of the government persecutions now taking place in Spain, France, Germany and perhaps also in Italy. If we held a public congress, in the majority of these countries our delegates would not be publicly elected and they would probably be arrested on their return. Given this state of affairs we are compelled to resort to a private conference, of which neither the convocation, the meeting time nor the proceedings will be made public. A conference of this type took place in 1865 instead of a congress.[25] This conference can naturally meet only in London, since this is the only capital in Europe where foreigners are not condemned to expulsion by the police. The number of delegates and the norms for elections are left entirely to the various national divisions. The conference will only have a few days at its disposal and it will thus limit its discussions mainly to practical questions concerning the internal Administration of the general organisation of the society. Since its sessions will not be public, and the discussions will not subsequently be published, the discussion of theoretical points will be of little importance; nevertheless the delegates' meeting will be a propitious occasion for an exchange of ideas. The General Council will place before the conference a report on its work over the last two years and the conference will pronounce upon it. There will thus be several important questions to deal with before proceeding.

I beg you however to press for the reorganisation of our sections in Italy as far as possible so that they can be represented in this conference. Since Gambuzzi will be coming to London at about this time, he could perhaps rearrange his trip to suit and receive a mandate as one of your delegates. I must however draw your attention at the same time to paragraph 8 of the Administrative Regulations, which says:

'Only those delegates of divisions and sections that have paid their contributions to the General Council can take part in the work of the Congress.'[26]

The contribution is one soldo or 10 cents a year for each member; it would be a good idea to send it in advance of the conference, otherwise difficulties may arise regarding the powers of delegates.

I would be grateful if you could send me at least six copies of the Italian translation of The Civil War in France as soon as it is published, for the use of the Council.

It would be advisable if, in addressing your letter, instead of my name you used that of Miss Burns, as follows: Miss Burns, 122 Regent's Park, and rien de plus, with no other envelope or address inside. She is my niece, a girl who does not speak Italian, so there are no mistakes to fear.

I also enclose our address to the American Council denouncing the conduct of their ambassador in Paris, Mr Washburne.[27]

2) and 3) Published reports of the 2 meetings of the Council (these reports contain nothing but what we want published, having taken out all the internal administrative matters).

F. Engels

  1. ↑ Engels' letters to Carlo Cafiero of 1-3, 16 and 28 July 1871, written in English, were confiscated by the police when Cafiero was arrested in August 1871. They were translated into Italian by a police translator. These copies were discovered in 1946 by the Italian historian Aldo Romano among the documents of the prefecture at the State Archives in Naples. Engels' original letters have not been traced. In the texts published in this volume, obvious distortions and errors by the translator and copyist have been corrected. The letter of 1-3 July 1871 was published in English for the first time in part in: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972.
  2. ↑ See this volume, pp. 170-73.
  3. ↑ In the original mistakenly: 'third'.
  4. ↑ G. Mazzini, 'Agli opérai italiani', La Roma del Popolo, No. 20, 13 July 1871.
  5. ↑ Caporusso embezzled the 300 lire which had been collected by members of the Naples Section to assist their imprisoned comrades.
  6. ↑ Hegel considered reflexion the motive force of the development of the World Spirit, the inner form of the historical self-consciousness and self-development of culture.
  7. ↑ The words in parentheses were inserted into the resolution by Engels.
  8. ↑ The League of Peace and Freedom was a pacifist organisation set up in 1867 with the active participation of Victor Hugo, Giuseppe Garibaldi and other democrats. In 1867-68 Mikhail Bakunin was also among the members of the League. Marx's tactics vis-à-vis the League of Peace and Freedom were approved by the Brussels Congress of the International in 1868, which opposed official affiliation to the League but was in favour of joint action by the working class and all the progressive anti-war forces.
  9. ↑ K. Marx, 'The International Working Men's Association and the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy'.
  10. ↑ K. Marx, 'The General Council of the International Working Men's Association to the Central Bureau of the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy'.
  11. ↑ See this volume, p. 170.
  12. ↑ This letter by Engels has not been found.
  13. ↑ 25 July 1871
  14. ↑ The report on the General Council meeting of 25 July was published in The Eastern Post, No. 148, 29 July 1871.
  15. ↑ On Engels' advice, Cafiero published the subsequent part of the letter (up to the words: 'At last Tuesday's meeting the Council...') in Libero Pensiero on 31 August 1871 and in several other Italian papers (see F. Engels, 'Mazzini's Statement Against the International Working Men's Association', present edition, Vol. 22).
  16. ↑ See this volume, p. 173.
  17. ↑ This refers to the withdrawal of the Italian Mazzinists from the Central (General) Council in April 1865 following the discussion of the conflict in the Paris Section of the International (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 82-83).
  18. ↑ This refers to Jung's letter to the editor of the bourgeois-democratic newspaper L'Echo de Verviers, in reply to the libellous attacks made on the International's leaders by the petty-bourgeois journalist Pierre Vésinier in the paper. Jung's letter, dated 15 February 1866, had been edited by Marx (see present edition, Vol. 20, pp. 392-400).
  19. ↑ In Volume 2 of his Histoire de la révolution de 1848, Louis Blanc maintained that the Bonapartists had taken an active part in the events of June 1848 (see Note 113), which, he alleged, had been provoked by them.
  20. ↑ G. Odger and B. Lucraft
  21. ↑ General Council members Odger and Lucraft expressed their disapproval of the Address of the General Council The Civil War in France, virtually joining in the campaign of slander against the International started by the bourgeois press when this Address was published. At its meetings on 20 and 27 June 1871 the General Council unanimously condemned Odger and Lucraft and accepted their resignations.
  22. ↑ A. Taylor, J. Roach, Ch. Mills, G. Lochner
  23. ↑ J. P. MacDonnell
  24. ↑ 25 July 1871
  25. ↑ An allusion to the preliminary conference held in London on 25-29 September 1865 instead of the congress of the International Working Men's Association planned for Brussels. In line with a resolution of the Basle Congress (1869), the next congress of the International Working Men's Association was to be held in Paris. However, the persecution of the International's sections by the police in France compelled the General Council to move the next congress to Mainz (see Note 40). The outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War made the congress impossible; nor was it possible to hold it in the atmosphere of severe reprisals against the members of the International during the civil war in France, especially after the suppression of the Paris Commune. In these circumstances, the majority of national federations agreed that the congress be postponed and the General Council be empowered to fix the date of its convocation. At the same time the urgent tasks to be undertaken in the struggle against the Bakuninists and other sectarian elements, as well as other pressing problems, demanded the adoption of collective decisions. At its meeting on 25 July 1871 the General Council, at Engels' suggestion, resolved to convene a private conference of the International in London on the third Sunday of September. The majority of the federations agreed to the proposal. The London Conference was held from 17 to 23 September 1871. Twenty-two voting, and ten non-voting, delegates took part in its work. The countries unable to send delegates were represented by the corresponding secretaries. Marx represented Germany, Engels—Italy. In all, nine sessions were held. The most important decision of the Conference was formulated in Resolution IX, 'Political Action of the Working Class', which declared the need to found, in each country, an independent proletarian party whose ultimate goal was the conquest of political power by the working class.
  26. ↑ Engels is quoting Resolution VIII on organisational questions adopted by the Basle Congress of the International (1869). By decision of the London Conference of 1871 this Resolution was incorporated into the new edition of the Administrative Regulations (I. The General Congress, Art. 7) (see present edition, Vol. 23, p. 8).
  27. ↑ K. Marx, 'Mr. Washburne, the American Ambassador, in Paris'.