Letter to Eduard Bernstein, September 13-15, 1884

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 13 September 1884


First published, in Russian, in Marx-Engels Archives, Book I, Moscow, 1924
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 47
Printed according to the original


ENGELS TO EDUARD BERNSTEIN

IN ZURICH

London, 13-15 September 1884

Dear Ede,

I have been back here a fortnight (all but).[1] During my absence Eisengarten was supposed to be making a fair copy of that part of the ms. of Part II[2] that was ready. The great heat, however, led him, now to dawdle, now to write so beautifully, if so slowly and so little, that I dare not send what has been done to Meissner because I would not be able to follow it up quickly enough. So that puts paid for the present to early publication; what Meissner will do now, I don't know. In some respects I'm not sorry, for in this way I can be all the more certain that nothing will have to be done in too much of a hurry.

What you say about the translation of my pamphlet[3] is all very well. But how does Lafargue translate? He consults neither his wife nor the dictionary; he does everything on his own, decrees that such and such a German word is so and so in French, and then, proud of his masterpiece, sends me the ms. I could do it just as well myself. He, of course, wants to set to at once — however, nous verrons ce que nous verrons[4] As for an English version, Aveling has enough on his hands for the time being,[5] and also proposes to translate my Entwicklung.[6] But what publisher will pay for it? And in his position he can't do more unpaid work than he already does. Nor is there any particular hurry about this. Our prime concern must be to put Capital into English, and that will give us work and to spare.

I was greatly tickled by the way you took Bahr and Fabian, not to mention friend Gumbel, to task over the stock exchange taxes[7] (I always know my Gumbel, whether he's vindicating his respectable toping companions, the Heilbronn philistines, or whatever). In Bahr and Fabian you have two fine examples of German 'erudition', something I am always glad to see harshly taken to task. One aims at Bahr the blow intended for Geiser. What particularly pleased me, however, was the way you struck home, putting emphasis on essential points, and also your verve.

Now I must break off; I can only spend a short time sitting at my desk. I took some cold sea-baths that did me more harm than good. Till tomorrow then.

14 September. I returned the ms. of Poverty[8] to you last week, 4 September, by registered post, together with my comments. I presume you received it. When you [and Kautsky] compare my amendments with the original you will find that certain turns of phrase had not, in fact, been correctly understood (in some cases I have made comments), but that is inevitable unless one has spent a good deal of time in the country concerned.

I have at last been able to get hold of a copy of my enlarged photograph for the artist[9] —I forget his name and have mislaid his letter — who wishes to make a colour-print of Marx.[10] I shall send it to you tomorrow or the day after.

Since the present elections will have a major impact[11] we must all make an effort and so I am sending you herewith a money order for £25 for the election fund.

Sorge has sent me Gronlund's The Cooperative Commonwealth; his exposé of theory rather flat after Marx's, but comprehensible to philistines; the main object is, apparently, to present his model of the future as true GERMAN SOCIALISM, but I found it too boring to read. Marx is not quoted, the only reference to him being SUCH NOBLE JEWS AS MARX AND LASSALLE! Crikey!

Under Hyndman's direction To-Day gets worse and worse. To make it more interesting they accept anything and everything. The editor has written to me saying that the October issue will contain a critique of Capital,[12] and invites me to reply — which I refused with thanks.[13] Thus a socialist organ has turned into an organ in which the pros and cons of socialism are discussed by every Tom, Dick and Harry.

I am sending you a Kölnische from which you may see what methods are used in Africa even by Stanley-Leopold of Belgium's humane, civilising Association Internationale.[14] Then what may we not expect of the Portuguese and French,— not to speak of our flog 'em-and-shoot 'em Prussians — when they get going? Come to that, Bismarck has pulled off a thundering good electoral coup with that colonial racket of his.[15] Not a philistine will be spared, they'll fall for it en masse. No doubt he will again succeed in obtaining a double majority of his own choosing—Conservatives[16] + National liberals, or should the latter again prove peevish, Conservatives + the Centre.[17] It's all one to us.

If I have the time, I shall enclose a line or two for Karl Kautsky.

Your

F. E.

15 September. No time, K. K. will have to wait a bit.

  1. ↑ See this volume, pp. 567 69.
  2. ↑ the second volume of Capital
  3. ↑ Clearly The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.
  4. ↑ we shall see what we shall see
  5. ↑ Aveling was translating into English the first volume of Capital (see also Note 56).
  6. ↑ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
  7. ↑ The reference is to a number of polemical articles in Der Sozialdemokrat. In No. 36, 3 September 1884 there was a leading article called 'Höheres Blech' directed against an article praising Rodbertus by the Austrian journalist Hermann Bahr which had appeared in the Viennese Deutsche Wochenschrift in August. In the same issue of Der Sozialdemokrat, Eduard Bernstein, using his pseudonym Leo, published an article ('Ein Ketzerriecher') against Heinrich Wilhelm Fabian, a German socialist living in the United States who had published articles against Marx's and Engels' doctrine of the state in the April issue of Der Freidenker and the New Yorker Volkszeitung. Der Sozialdemokrat, No. 37, 11 September 1884 carried an article called 'Wie stellen wir uns zur Börsensteuer?' evidently written by Abraham Gumbel. The article said that the German Social Democrats should support the bill on the stock exchange tax proposed by Bismarck. Taking up the polemics on this issue, the editorial board of Der Sozialdemokrat declared that, in its opinion, the bill accorded merely with the interests of the big landowners' party (see 'In Sachen der Börsenstcuer', Der Sozialdemokrat, No. 39, 25 September 1884).
  8. ↑ See this volume, p. 570.
  9. ↑ Karl Marx Schäppi
  10. ↑ See this volume, p. 170.
  11. ↑ See this volume, pp. 574-75.
  12. ↑ Ph.H. Wicksteed, 'Das Kapital. A Criticism', To Day, No. 10, October 1884.
  13. ↑ Engels' reply to the editors of To-Day has not been found.
  14. ↑ The Kölnische Zeitung, No. 241, 30 August 1884 (first edition) carried an article headed 'Professor Schweifurth über den Congo' on the activities of the Association Internationale Africaine which had been founded in Brussels in 1876 by King Leopold II of Belgium. The organisation was renamed the Comité d'Etudes du Haut-Congo in 1878. Among those taking part in its work was the famous explorer Henry Morton Stanley. The actual aim of the association was to seize and exploit the Congo basin. The article reported that, alongside their philanthropic and scientific work, the Belgian settlers were buying slaves in the Congo, employing the slave labour of the indigenous population, buying ivory, palm oil and other local commodities for export.
  15. ↑ See this volume, pp. 574-75.
  16. ↑ The Conservatives expressed the interests of the German Junkers, the aristocracy, the generals, the Lutheran clergy and senior officials. In the Reichstag they were represented by the German Conservative Party and the Free Conservative Party.
  17. ↑ The Centre — a political party of German Catholics formed in June 1870; it expressed the separatist and anti-Prussian tendencies that were widespread in West and South-West Germany (the deputies representing this party had their seats in the centre of the chamber). The Centre Party united different social sections of the Catholic clergy, landowners, bourgeoisie, sections of the peasantry and, as a rule, occupied an intermediate position, manoeuvring between the parties which supported the government and the Left opposition groups in the Reichstag. The Centre was in opposition to the Bismarck government from the mid-1870s to the early 1880s but still voted for the measures it took against the workers' and socialist movement. Engels described the Centre in detail in The Role of Force in History and in 'What Now?' (see present edition, Vol. 26).