Letter to Friedrich Adolph Sorge, May 11, 1889

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 11 May 1889


First published in Briefe und Auszüge aus Briefen von Job. Phil. Becker, Jos. Dietzgen, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx u. A. an F A. Sorge und Anders, Stuttgart, 1906
Published in English in full for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 48


ENGELS TO FRIEDRICH ADOLPH SORGE

IN HOBOKEN

London, 11 May 1889

Dear Sorge,

There's so much writing and running about to be done in connnection with the damned congress that I hardly have any time left for other matters. It's the devil of a job—nothing but misunderstandings, rows and vexation all round, and in the end there'll be nothing to show for it.

The Hague Conference people[1] allowed the Belgians to make fools of them. Instead of at once proceeding, as had been decided after the Possibilists'[2] refusal, to protest and convoke a rival congress (which ought to have been done jointly by the Swiss and Belgians), the Belgians did nothing, obstinately refused to answer any letters and ended up by trotting out the lame excuse that they had got to submit the matter to their national congress—21/22 April[3] —! Whereupon the others did nothing whatever (because, through the Swiss, Liebknecht was intrigu- ing with some of the Possibilists since it was he who must succeed in bringing about an understanding), and thus the Possibilists captured all the publicity with their proclamations while our chaps either remained silent or, when asked about the possibility of a rival congress by such Englishmen as were still wavering, returned nothing but non-committal answers. The ultimate outcome of this cunning policy was that even in Germany our people turned rebellious, and Auer and Schippel demanded that delegates be sent to the Possibilist congress.[4] This finally opened Liebknecht's eyes for him and, after I and Ede Bernstein had told the French they were now at liberty to convoke their congress, also on the 14th of July[5] as originally intended, he wrote and told them exactly the same thing. And so the French have got their way, but are rightly cursing Liebknecht's procrastination and general jiggery-pokery, the blame for which they are laying on the Germans as a whole.

In this country, however, it is we who are having to suffer worst from Liebknecht's clever-clever goings-on. Our pamphlet[6] had struck home like a thunderbolt and shown up Hyndman & Co. for the liars and cheats they are; everything was in our favour and, if Liebknecht had been prompt to act vis-à-vis the Belgians, as he damned well ought to have done, or else had let them go hang and himself negotiated with the others, either convoking, or getting the French to convoke, the congress at some definite date, we should have won over the masses, and the Social Democratic Federation[7] would have deserted Hyndman. But as it was, we were fobbed off with assurances and told to wait; and, since the chief bone of contention in the Trades Unions here was whether to comply with the leaders' wishes and not send delegates to the congress or whether to defy them and send delegates regardless—the quality of the congress being of secondary importance and their sole concern, entry or non-entry into the international movement—it was clear that the chaps would join forces with those who know their own minds rather than with those who didn't. And thus we lost a splendid position we had only just won, nor, unless some miracle happens, will any Englishman of note attend our congress.

Bernstein was here just now and has held me up until posting time, so I must close.

Wischnewetzky[8] hasn't been to see me. Don't know what these people are after.

Your

F.E.

  1. ↑ The International Socialist Conference was held in the Hague on 28 February 1889. It was attended by representatives of the socialist movement of Germany, France, Belgium, Holland and Switzerland. The conference was convened at the suggestion of the Social Democratic faction in the German Reichstag with the aim of framing the conditions for the calling of an International Socialist Working Men's Congress in Paris. The Possibilists refused to attend the conference despite the invitation and did not recognise its decisions. The conference defined the powers of the forthcoming congress, its date and agenda. The International Working Men's Congress took place on 14 July 1889.
  2. ↑ The Possibilists (Broussists) were a reformist trend in the French socialist movement between the 1880s and the early 20th century. Its leaders - Paul Brousse and Benoit Malon -caused a split in the French Workers' Party (see note 33) in 1882 and formed the Federation of Socialist Workers. Its ideological basis was the theory of municipal socialism. The Possibilists pursued a 'policy of the possible' ('la politique des possibilites'). At the beginning of the 20th century the Possibilists merged with the French Socialist Party.
  3. ↑ This refers to a congress of the Workers' Party of Belgium on 22 April 1889 at Jolimont, which decided to send delegates both to the International Working Men's Congress convened by Marxists in Paris and to the congress convened by the Possibilists, contrary to the opinion of the Ghent delegation that opposed the convocation.
  4. ↑ The reference is to the appeal of the German Social Democrats Ignaz Auer and Max Schippel in the German Party press for participation in the Possibilist-sponsored congress. The newspaper Berliner Volks-Tribiine, where Schippel was one of the editors, carried the article 'Zum Pariser Arbeiterkongres' in its issue of 27 April 1889. The Berliner Volksblatt came forward with the article 'Der internationale Arbeiter-kongres', No. 94, 21 April 1889, ppi-2. Speaking of Charles Bonnier's reply to these articles, Engels has in mind his article Tn Sachen des internationalen Arbeiterkongresses' published by the newspaper Berliner Volksblatt, No. 97, 26 April 1889 in its feature Politische Ubersicht.
  5. ↑ See this volume, p.301
  6. ↑ A reference to the pamphlet The International Working Men's Congress of 1889. A Reply to 'Justice', London 1889. Its original version was written by Eduard Bernstein at Engels' suggestion in reply to the editorial comment entitled The German 'Official' Social Democrats and the International Congress in Paris and carried by the newspaper Justice on 16 March 1889, No. 270. Having been edited by Engels, the pamphlet appeared in English in London, and then it was published by the German newspaper Der Sozialdemokrat and signed: E. Bernstein.
  7. ↑ The Social Democratic Federation was a British socialist organisation, the successor of the Democratic Federation, reformed in August 1884. It consisted of heterogeneous socialist elements, mostly intellectuals, but also politically active workers. The programme of the Federation provided for the collectivisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Its leader, Henry Hyndman, was dictatorial and arbitrary, and his supporters among the Federation's leaders denied the need to work among the trade unions. In contrast to Hyndman, the Federation members grouped round Eleanor Marx-Aveling, Edward Aveling, William Morris and Tom Mann sought close ties with the mass working-class movement. In December 1884, differences on questions of tactics and international co-operation led to a split in the Federation and the establishment of the independent socialist league (see note 21). In 1885-86 the Federation's branches were active in the movement of the unemployed, in strike struggles and in the campaign for the eight-hour day.
  8. ↑ Lazar Wischnewetzky