Letter to Eduard Bernstein, September 22, 1882


ENGELS TO EDUARD BERNSTEIN

IN ZURICH

London, 22 September 1882

Dear Mr Bernstein,

Herewith preface, chapters I and II. No. Ill has also been com- pleted, as has a concluding note of some 7 pages on early German common ownership of land ('The Mark').[1] But I want to revise it thoroughly once again and shall keep it here for a while.

The puff at the beginning is something I cannot allow. Because

[2]

Lafargue was the editor of the French edition and Malon sent in a highly inadequate affair, Marx wrote this introduction[3] with Lafargue, which may have been suitable on that occasion. In a Ger- man edition edited by myself, that sort of thing simply wouldn't do. However, once Marx is back here I might at some time write a little pamphlet for you on the theme of German socialism from 1840 to '52. It's got to be done some day. But Marx has got more than half the material, and God knows where he's tucked it away.

I would, of course, have to have both drafts of the Accident Insur- ance Act, ditto all the new bills of a social nature submitted to the Reichstag in the autumn.

The wholesale condemnation of indirect taxation had been mooted by us as far back as 1849 and '50, and that's where Lassalle got it from. I have noted the other things you say about Lassalle. Certain points are open to objection, but that's neither here nor there. Lassalle as a person simply doesn't come into it, but I cannot do other- wise than demolish the illusion that Lassalle was an original thinker in the economic (or indeed any other) field.[4]

I am glad to hear that the articles were written by Vollmar[5] ; it shows how much he has come on. I quite agree with what you say about the Anti-Socialist Law. We shall benefit only if the law is purement et simplement[6] abrogated. And that will happen only if new life can somehow be injected into the German political puppet-show, and if something should happen immediately conducive to a revolution, a new era, Russian constitution or something of the sort. In which case there can be no doubt that we shall obtain majorities everywhere where there are now strong minorities and, besides Saxony, win over all the larger towns.

As for the French, your plaint is the eternal one which everybody voices. They are governed by the moment, and by personalities. I don't read the Citoyen and do not get the Égalité at all regularly, nor do I know whether it still exists, so cannot have any real idea of what the chaps have been up to of late. But of one thing you may be sure — there can be no peace with Brousse. The latter is, and will remain, a consummate anarchist, his only concession being the admissibility of participating in elections; moreover he and Malon, by throwing the others out of the Fédération du Centre, have intensified the strug- gle in the conduct of which Brousse is employing wholly Bakuninist tactics — slander, lies and every imaginable dirty trick. The tactics the others employ may on occasion be silly and childish, may fail in their objective and make it impossible for us foreigners to intervene on their behalf (as, indeed, we have regularly refused to do), but the fact remains that it has become impossible, once and for all, to do anything whatever in concert with Brousse. He will not rest content until his clique, 'Alliance'-fashion,[7] has gained control of the entire movement. Come to that, the whole of the 'workers' party', both fac- tions included, constitutes only a small and dwindling portion of the Parisian working-class masses. The latter still continue to follow men like Clemenceau, against whom Guesde has conducted his polemic in a way that is far too personal and also quite wrong in other respects. Besides, Clemenceau is perfectly capable of development and might, given the chance, go much further than at present, especially once he has realised that what is entailed is a class struggle; true, he won't real- ise this until he has to. Now, Guesde has got it firmly into his head that Gambetta's république athénienne[8] is far less of a threat to socialists than Clemenceau's république Spartiate,[9] and hence wishes to prevent the latter, as though we or any party in the world could prevent a country from passing through its historically necessary stages of development; nor has he stopped to think that it would be difficult to attain socialism in the France of a republic à la Gambetta without having first passed through a republic à la Clemenceau. But in the absence of such an insight into the necessary historical context of things and hence into the probable course of their development, party politics cannot be pursued with success. However, I have thrown up the sponge and am leaving the chaps to their own devices. Nor will the Belgians get anywhere with their admonitions.

John Stuart Mill's niece and adoptive daughter, who contributed to the election fund, is called Helen Taylor and is not therefore the same as Ellen M. Taylor. Although both these Christian names mean Helena, they are two quite distinct persons.

I know absolutely nothing about Garcia.[10] From time to time some- one from the club comes to see me, and I shall ask about him when the occasion arises.

Apropos. How did the rumour about Bebel's death get into the Citoyen and the Bataille? It came as a tremendous shock to us over here — as it did to Marx in Vevey, where he spent 3 weeks,[11] and we had no means of verifying it until we got the Justice on Monday evening, containing a telegram with Liebknecht's démenti; for the information, or lack of it, in the Sozialdemokrat could not reas- sure us completely because of its having been published on the Thursday.— By now Marx will probably be on his way back to Argenteuil, though he might spend a few days in Geneva. He is bet- ter but the poor summer has undone most of the good work effected by the cure.

I would ask you to briefly acknowledge receipt of the ms., and also to send me the ms. with the proofs,— in a wrapper, of course. How long can I keep the remainder here without causing inconvenience?

Kindest regards,

Yours,

F. E.

  1. A reference to Chapter III of the German translation of Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and the article 'The Mark' appended to it (see this volume, pp. 331-32).
  2. Eleanor Marx and Helene Demuth
  3. The Hague Congress (2-7 September 1872) of the International Working Men's Association was the most representative in its history. Present at the congress were 65 delegates from 15 countries. It took stock of the campaign against Bakuninism within the International and mapped out a programme of action suited to the new conditions that had emerged after the Paris Commune. Its main decision was to endorse the London Conference (1871) resolution on the political action of the working class concisely formulated as Art. 7 of the International's Rules. The congress also reached a number of decisions aimed at consolidating the Association's organisational structure.
    After the congress, the Bakuninists declared their disagreement with its resolutions, causing what amounted to a split in the International. The Hague Congress laid the foundation for future political parties of the working class in various countries.
  4. See this volume, pp. 324-25.
  5. At the time of the Russo-Turkish war of 1828-29, Prussia's stand towards Russia was one of benevolent neutrality.
  6. purely and simply
  7. The section 'What's Going on at Home?' in Vperyod! (Vol. Ill, London, 1874) carried an anonymous article from Irkutsk dated February 1874; its actual author was Hermann Lopatin, who described a group of religious dissenters he met in Siberia called 'Not Ours'. They denied the existence of God and opposed government authority, property, family and all existing laws and customs in protest against the existing system in Russia.
  8. Athenian republic
  9. Spartan republic
  10. See this volume, pp. 347-48.
  11. On 25 (13) December 1877 the Russian army embarked on the decisive offensive on the Balkan theatre of war. Having crossed the Balkans, Russian troops entered Sofia on 4 January 1878 (23 December 1877), smashed the last Turkish army in the battle of Philippopol (Plovdiv) on 15-17 (3-5) January 1878, and entered Adrianople (Edirne) on 20 (8) January and continued their advance towards Constantinople (Istanbul). On 31 (19) January, Turkey was compelled to sign an armistice in Adrianople.