Letter to Friedrich Adolph Sorge, May 3, 1873

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 3 May 1873


First published abridged in Briefe und Auszüge aus Briefen von Joh. Phil. Becker, Jos. Dietzgen, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx u. A. an F. A. Sorge und Andere, Stuttgart, 1906 and in full in: Marx and Engels, Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XXVI, Moscow, 1935
Published in English in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 44


ENGELS TO FRIEDRICH ADOLPH SORGE

IN HOBOKEN

London, 3 May 1873

Dear Sorge,

Have received your letter of the 9th and that of the General Council of the 11th.

1. Serraillier. What Dereure says is utter nonsense.[1] The priest story amounts only to this: Pottier, a delegate of the Commune in the 2nd arrondissement, to which Serraillier was assigned, hired out the churches to the priests (le dit délégué loue la boutique nommé Eglise, etc. etc. au nommé... pour y exercer le métier de cure[2] was the formula) and Pottier collected all the money and used it for Commune and arrondissement business and credited it to the Commune. Serraillier never had a sou of it in his hands. Le Moussu, who rises to the word 'priest' like a hungry fish to the bait, actually intended to have Pottier and Serraillier arrested for this, because, as he expressed it, ceci était un commerce immoral[3]

When it comes to bad jokes I am not sure who has produced the best one, Le Moussu or Pottier and Serraillier. But to base serious accusations on such childish grounds is worse than childish. However, the Frenchmen of today are children. What the demonstration of the 22 is supposed to be, I do not know; I suppose it was the attempted resignation of the minority. The row between majority and minority in the Commune is still going on and for everyone with a Blanquist taint it is still an offence even today, and a capital offence moreover, to have belonged to the minority. All this is ancient history for us here; we have heard every conceivable variation on that tune until we are sick of it and would not give a brass farthing for the entire story.

2. Arbeiter-Zeitung—it must indeed be said that the uncouthness of its style could not be surpassed. However, that is American— the entire German-American press writes like that. For the present neither Marx nor myself have a single spare moment to write regular reports; I am up to my eyes in work for the Congress which is to be tabled in French[4] and Marx is immersed in his French translation.[5]

3. The Viennese. We know no more than has appeared publicly, since neither Oberwinder nor Scheu has written to us direct.[6] However, we have our suspicions about Scheu. 1. He is in touch with Vaillant and 2. there are signs that like his friend and predecessor, Neumayr, who has since gone mad, he is in contact with Bakunin. The echo of the latter's resounding phrases can be detected in Scheu's articles and speeches, and you will remember how his brother[7] disappeared from The Hague[8] as soon as the business with Bakunin came to a head. Up to now no serious allegations against Oberwinder have been made, at least in public. His collaboration on bourgeois papers took place with the foreknowledge and approval of the party and directly served party purposes. If The Times were put at my disposal tomorrow and I could write what I wanted and receive payment for it, I would accept without hesitation. Nobody objected to Eccarius doing this until he reversed the situation and exploited the International in his own financial interests and no longer wrote in its interests but in his own and those of The Times. And since in Austria feudalism has only partly been overcome, the masses are still incredibly stupid and conditions are still about the same as those in Germany before 1848, we naturally do not take it amiss that Oberwinder does not immediately demand the moon with the maximum of radical hullaballoo, but instead pursues the policies we advocated at the end of the Communist Manifesto as being appropriate for Germany at the time. Here and there he may exhibit an excess of petty-bourgeois caution, but in the first place even that has not been proved and in the second, it is no cause for such a tremendous hue and cry. Moreover, Oberwinder is no Austrian and so could be deported at any time. But, as I have said, we do not know the details and so reserve our judgment.

4. Admission requirements.[9] —Even assuming that formally you are in the right to make all these demands on the individual sections (which is, however, very much open to doubt), up to now no Federal Council has ever imposed these bureaucratically precise conditions, and had it imposed them, they would never have been fulfilled. What a great mistake it was to make such requirements even in France is demonstrated by the article in No. 49 of the Neuer Social-Demokrat,[10] which I am sending you today. I informed Hepner[11] straightaway and, having made precise enquiries yesterday about Dentraygues and Heddeghem, I have despatched the necessary statement to the Volksstaat[12] 5. We expect more news about France before taking any steps. I do not see that there are any steps you could possibly take. All our sections have been uncovered. Heddeghem was a spy as early as The Hague. Dentraygues is not, but for personal reasons and from weakness, he denounced some individuals who had previously beaten him up. A member who wanted to obtain some money for the party had given his watch to Dentraygues, asking him to pawn it. Dentraygues' wife did so and later refused to redeem it or even to hand over the pawn-ticket. This caused a scandal. A few people—mainly bourgeois—got together, gave Dentraygues a thrashing and then denounced him to the public prosecutor, at whose urgings they confessed that the money had been intended for the use of the International!!! This was the real beginning of the whole business—but since Heddeghem had already informed the police in Paris of all this, it could come as a surprise only to the Toulouse police at most. These then are the fellows that Dentraygues denounced, and there was no one else. How the police found out about other things you will see from the Volksstaat. At all events, at the present time the organisation in France is in pieces and will take some time to recover since all communications have broken down. Larroque is in Spain, in San Sebastian. His address: Monsieur Latraque, Calle de la Aduana, No. 21—he is living there under that name. For goodness' sake do not send any new letters of authority to France. Larroque has been given 3 years in contumaciam[13]

6. Stamps.[14] —I hardly ever see Le Moussu, I have got Marx to give him a good kick, but still no answer. It is impossible to do any business with these Frenchmen without wasting whole weeks at a time chasing after them, and I cannot do that.

7. Venue for the Congress. 672—I hope you have only asked the Swiss for their advice as we did with the Dutch last year. In Switzerland there is only one possible place and that is Geneva. There we have the mass of workers behind us, and also a hall belonging to the International, the Temple Unique, from which we can simply throw the gentlemen from the Alliance10 out when they present themselves. Apart from Geneva, only Zurich would be possible; but there we have hardly more than the few German workers and not even all of these (vide the Felleisen) and your enquiry might even result in the proposal from various sides that the Congress should be held at the centrally situated town of Olten—the chief railway junction in Switzerland, in which case we should really be in the soup. The Alliancists are doing everything in their power to turn up at the Congress in force, whereas on our side everyone is going to sleep. No French delegates can come since the collapse. The Germans, although they have their own quarrel with the Lassalleans, were very disheartened by the Hague Congress, where they expected nothing but fraternity and harmony in contrast to their own squabbles, and have become apathetic. Moreover, the party authorities of the Social-Democratic Workers' Party consist at the moment of nothing but dyed-in-the-wool Lassalleans (Yorck & Co.) who are insisting that both the Party and its paper should be forced into the straitjacket of a Lassalleanism of the most superficial sort. The struggle continues; the Lassalleans wish to take advantage of the time in which Liebknecht and Bebel are in gaol[15] so as to get their own way. Little Hepner is putting up vigorous resistance, but he has been as good as forced off the board of the Volksstaat and anyway has been deported from Leipzig.[16] The victory of these fellows would be synonymous with the loss of the Party for us—for the moment at least. I have written Liebknecht a very determined letter to this effect[17] and am still awaiting a reply.—From Denmark nothing has been seen or heard. My long-held suspicion that the Lassalleans of the Neuer Social-Demokrat have thrown everything into confusion there through their supporters in North Schleswig and have induced people to withdraw from the International,[18] is daily confirmed by the Neuer Social-Demokrat, which is much better informed about events in Copenhagen than the Volksstaat.—From England only a few delegates can come and it is very doubtful whether the Spaniards will send one, so it is to be expected that the Congress will be very poorly attended and that the Bakuninists will have more people there than us. The Genevans themselves are doing nothing, the Égalité seems to be defunct, so that even there no great support appears likely—merely the consciousness that there we shall be sitting in our own house and among people who know Bakunin and his gang and can throw them out if need be. So Geneva is the only place possible, and to secure a victory for us, the only necessary condition remaining—though it is an absolutely indispensable one—is that, in accordance with the resolution of 26 January,[19] the General Council should now announce the following resignations:

1. The Belgian Federation, which has declared that it has nothing to do with the General Council and which has repudiated the Hague resolutions.

2. That part of the Spanish Federation which was represented in Cordoba[20] and which contravened the Rules by declaring the payment of dues to the General Council to be optional, and which has also repudiated the Hague resolutions.

3. The English sections and individuals represented at the would-be London congress of 26 January, who have likewise repudiated the Hague resolutions.852

4. The Jura Federation which, at the congress they are due to hold shortly,[21] will undoubtedly give us adequate grounds to extend the resolution on suspension.

Lastly, it could be announced that the so-called Italian Federation which was represented at the so-called congress of Bologna[22] (instead of Mirandola), is not a member of the International at all since it has never satisfied even a single one of the conditions laid down by the Rules.[23]

Once this resolution has been published and the General Council has set up a committee in Geneva to make preparations for the Congress and to scrutinise the mandates in advance, a committee consisting e.g. of Becker,[24] Perret, Duval and Utin, if he is there, the mass surge forward of the Bakuninists will have been forestalled. As soon as the General Council has issued instructions to the committees that these people cannot be given recognition as delegates until they have been granted admission by the majority of the genuine and acknowledged delegates of the International, all will be well. Even if they were in the majority, they would be innocuous; they could go elsewhere and hold their own congress, but without having brought their majority to bear vis-à-vis ourselves. And that is all we can ask for.

Cordial regards from Marx too.

Your

F. E.

  1. ↑ In a letter of 9 April 1873 Sorge informed Engels that when confirming Auguste Serraillier's appointment as representative of the General Council for France, Simon Dereure, referring to Benjamin Le Moussu, had levelled a number of charges against Serraillier, e.g., that at the time of the Commune he had appropriated the money received from priests for the lease of churches. Dereure also accused Serraillier of participation in 'the demonstration of the 22' mentioned by Engels below.
    The demonstration of the 22 probably refers to the protest of the Proudhnonist minority in the Paris Commune against the decree on the establishment of the Committee of Public Safety which had been passed by a majority vote at the Commune's meeting of 1 May 1871.
  2. ↑ the aforenamed delegate lets the premises, known as the church, etc., etc., to the person named... for the purpose of carrying out the trade of priest
  3. ↑ it was unethical commerce
  4. ↑ This refers to work on the pamphlet The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Working Men's Association.
  5. ↑ The surviving manuscript copy of the letter does not bear the name of the addressee. However, its contents and Marx's correspondence on the subject indicate that it was addressed to the heads of the Lachâtre publishing house in Paris. On 13 February 1872 Marx received a reply from the manager Juste Vernouillet, who informed him about the despatch of copies of the agreement on the publication of the French translation of Volume I of Capital. The agreement was signed on 15 February by Marx on one side, and Maurice Lachâtre and Juste Vernouillet on the other. It stipulated that the French edition was to be published in 44 instalments, and sold five instalments at a time.
    The French authorised edition of Volume I of Capital was published between 17 September 1872 and November 1875. The translation was done by Joseph Roy, who began in February 1872 and completed work in late 1873. The quality of the translation largely failed to satisfy Marx; besides, he was convinced that the original needed to be revised to adapt it to French readers.
  6. ↑ In a letter of 9 April 1873 Sorge asked Engels for detailed information on the strife among the Viennese socialists.
    On 15 March 1873 Der Volksstaat, No. 22, printed a letter under the heading 'An die sozialdemokratische Partei Oesterreichs' by the socialist Andreas Scheu, who accused the editor of the Viennese Volkswille Heinrich Oberwinder of opportunism and nationalism. In the reply, carried by the Volkswille, No. 23, 19 March 1873, Oberwinder reproached Scheu with having links with the anarchists.
  7. ↑ Heinrich Scheu
  8. ↑ On 19 July 1872 at the meeting of the General Council Executive Committee (Sub-Committee; see Note 435), Engels was instructed to prepare the financial report for the Hague Congress covering the period since the London Conference in September 1871. The report was read out by Engels at the Hague Congress sitting of 7 September 1872, and unanimously approved.
    Marx and Engels arrived at The Hague to take part in the Congress on 1 September 1872. On 8 September they travelled to Amsterdam, where they took part in the meeting marking the closure of the Congress. Engels returned to London on 12 September, and Marx around 17 September 1872.
    The Fifth Congress of the International Working Men's Association was held on 2-7 September 1872 in The Hague and attended by 65 delegates from 15 national organisations. Its decision to include in the General Rules (as Article 7a) the major tenet on the conquest of political power by the proletariat, and its resolutions relating to Administrative Regulations signified a victory for Marxism. The Congress took stock of the struggle Marx, Engels and their followers had waged for years against petty-bourgeois sectarianism in the workers' movement, in whatever guise it appeared, most notably against Bakuninism; Mikhail Bakunin and James Guillaume, the anarchist leaders, were expelled from the International. The resolutions of the Hague Congress laid the groundwork for the future formation of independent political parties of the working class on a national level.
  9. ↑ See this volume, pp. 483 84.
  10. ↑ A reference to the article 'Internationale Arbeiterassoziation' published in the Neuer Social-Demokrat, No. 49, 27 April 1873, in which the editors tried to place the responsibility for the arrests and trial of the International's members in France on Marx and the General Council (see Note 677).
  11. ↑ F. Engels, 'On the Articles in the Neuer Social Demokrat (From a Letter to A. Hepner)'.
  12. ↑ F. Engels, 'The International and the Neuer'.
  13. ↑ in his absence
  14. ↑ On 22 December 1872 the General Council decided that the stamps pasted on the members' personal copies of the International's Rules as a sign that they had paid their dues (see Note 420) would be printed in London. The plates were to be made by Benjamin Le Moussu, a professional engraver. Engels was requested to supervise their production.
  15. ↑ Following the arrest of Bebel, Liebknecht and Hepner (17 December 1870), Bismarck's government started preparations for a trial of the leaders of the Social-Democratic Workers' Party, who were charged with 'high treason' (see Note 134). The trial was held in Leipzig between 11 and 26 March 1872.
    Though the charges brought against them had not been proved, Bebel and Liebknecht were condemned to two-year imprisonment in a fortress (with the deduction of the two months they had spent in prison before the trial); Hepner was acquitted. Following the trial in Leipzig, early in July 1872 Bebel was again brought before the court 'for insulting His Majesty', which he had allegedly done when addressing workers in Leipzig. Bebel was sentenced to additional 9 months in prison and deprived of his seat in the Reichstag.
  16. ↑ In late 1872 Adolf Hepner was sentenced to four weeks' imprisonment for 'activities in support of the International' and participation in the Hague Congress, and expelled from Leipzig in the spring of 1873. He lived in a Leipzig suburb for a while, but was forced to move to Breslau (Wroclaw) on account of police persecution.
  17. ↑ The first open clash between the adherents of scientific socialism and the Bakuninists over abolishing the right of inheritance came at the Basle Congress (September 1869). Since none of the proposals produced an absolute majority the Basle Congress did not adopt any resolution on this question.
  18. ↑ See this volume, p. 466.
  19. ↑ Under the resolution issued by the New York General Council on 26 January 1873, all organisations and individuals who refused to comply with the decisions of the Hague Congress thereby placed themselves outside the International Working Men's Association. Later, on 30 May, the General Council passed a new resolution which listed the federations, sections and individuals who had placed themselves outside the International.
  20. ↑ The congress in Cordoba, attended only by Spanish anarchists (48 delegates), took place on 25 December 1872-2 January 1873. The congress rejected the resolutions of the Hague Congress and the General Rules of the International Working Men's Association, disbanded the Federal Council and replaced it with a federal commission with severely restricted powers. It also aligned itself with the resolutions of the international anarchist congress in Saint-Imier (see Note 599), which were hostile to the International.
    On the Address of the New Madrid Federation, see Note 612.
  21. ↑ Engels probably means the congress of the Jura Federation held on 27-28 April 1873 in Neuchâtel (a report on the congress appeared in the Bulletin de la Federation jurassienne, No. 9, 1 May 1873). The Federation reiterated its refusal to recognise the Hague Congress resolutions and proposed sending delegates to an international anarchist congress scheduled to open on 1 September 1873 (see Note 671).
  22. ↑ On 15-17 March 1873 the Second Congress of the so-called Italian Federation of the International was held in Bologna and attracted representatives from 153 anarchist sections. The congress decided to unconditionally support the resolutions of the conference in Rimini (see Note 576) and the Saint-Imier congress (see Note 599), and to reject the Hague Congress resolutions.
  23. ↑ The first four points of Engels' recommendations were incorporated by the New York General Council into its resolution of 30 May 1873 (see Note 680). Engels' proposal on the so-called Italian Federation was also taken into account by the Council, which on 30 May drew up a statement complementing the above-mentioned resolution.
  24. ↑ Johann Philipp Becker