Letter to Vera Zasulich, April 17, 1890

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 17 April 1890


Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 48


ENGELS TO VERA ZASULICH[1]

IN MORNEX (FRANCE)

London, 17 April 1890
122 Regent's Park Road, N. W.

My dear Citizen,

When I read Beck's article, I had a feeling it might anger you and your friends, and I told Bernstein that, in his place, I would not have published such twaddle. To this, his answer was that he felt he had no right to suppress an article which did, after all, express the views of a fair number of young Russians, people who had no other organ in which to reply, for the benefit of Sozialdemokrat readers, to the article which had preceded it, and that what he had chiefly in mind was to give you an opportunity to answer those criticisms; he added that he would natu- rally, and with the greatest pleasure, print any reply you cared to send him.[2]

The position of the Sozialdemokrat vis-à-vis the Russians in the West is somewhat delicate. Needless to say, the paper looks upon you as the allies and particular friends of the German movement, but other socialist groups can also lay claim to some measure of consideration. If they are to communicate with German working men, they are more or less obliged to write to the Sozialdemokrat; should that paper refuse them its hospitality? To do so would be to meddle in the internal affairs of the Russians—something to be avoided at all costs. Consider the internal struggles of the French and Danish Socialists; for as long as it was able, i.e. so long as it was not itself called in question, the

Sozialdemokrat maintained its neutrality vis-à-vis the Possibilitsts,[3] as it has continued to do vis-à-vis the two Danish parties, although its sympathies lie entirely with the 'revolutionary' side.[4] And the same thing applies to the Russians; Bernstein has never harboured any ill- will whatsoever towards you, of that you may be assured, but he has an exaggerated sense of justice and equity; and rather than perpetrate one injustice against an enemy or a man he finds uncongenial, he will sooner perpetrate ten against his friends and allies; all his friends criti- cise him for an impartiality so excessive that it ends up as bias against his allies. This is why he always tends to give the enemy the benefit of the doubt.

Add to that the fact that we are all very much in the dark as regards the various, and far from immutable, groupings which occur among the Russians in the West, so that we are liable at any given moment to drop a brick. Bernstein is much better informed than I am, having had at least some first-hand experience of this kind of thing in Zurich, whereas I, on the contrary, did not know so much as the names, or even suspect the existence of the journals you cite.[5] Bernstein tells me that, in Beck's letter, he detects the accents of Lavrov's followers—whether rightly or wrongly, I do not know—but this was one of the reasons which induced him to publish the letter.

He also told me that he had arranged for a translation of Plekhanov's preface to be sent him from Paris so that he might print it in its entirety; it had arrived, he said, and would appear as soon as possible. He arranged this as soon as he got Beck's letter, which can only mean that he intended to take advantage of its publication to give Plekhanov another say. I would now suggest that you write a reply to Beck—in French, if you so wish—and send it to me or else direct to the Sozialdemokrat (address 4 Corinne Road, Tufnell Park, London N.). While you, for your part, may know the said Mr Beck who, outside Russian circles, is quite unknown, and while you may regard entering into debate with him as a somewhat demeaning occupation, this is, after all, the sort of unpleasantness to which one is all too often compelled to submit, as I am only too well aware.

I know from experience what an upheaval is like when it takes place, as now, in the bosom of a small community of the Russians in the West. Everyone knows everyone else, having had with them personal relations of a friendly or hostile nature and, as a result, any development—accom- panied as it inevitably is by divisions, schisms and controversies—will assume a wholly personal character. Such things are inherent in any

  1. ↑ The present letter is in reply to V. Zasulich's letter written around 10 April 1890.
  2. ↑ Grigori Beck's article 'Erwiderung' ran a sharp critique of G. Plekhanov for his preface to the pamphlet Pytr Alexey ev's Speech; in it Plekhanov cautioned workers against 'the false friends' from among the liberal intelligentsia. Published by Der Sozialdemokrat (No.14, 5 April 1890), this article was written in reply to the report 'Aus der russischen Bewegung', carried by the same newspaper (No. 12) on 22 March and signed ZKW. On 26 April 1890, Der Sozialdemokrat (No. 17) published a letter to the editors from Ossipowitch (probably, V. Zasulich's pseudonym) with a prefatory editor's note 'Uber die Propaganda unter den russischen Arbeitern'.
  3. ↑ 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.
  4. ↑ Engels is referring to the expulsion of two Leftwing members (one of whom was Trier) of the Executive Committee of the Danish Socialist Party, because they were opposed to the Socialist Party forming a bloc with Venstre, the Danish liberals, who expressed the interests of major landed proprietors and factory owners.
  5. ↑ In her letter Vera Zasulich listed a number of Russian newspapers and magazines published in Switzerland in 1888-89: Svoboda (Freedom), Borba ( Struggle), Samoupravlenie (Self-Government) and Svobodnaya Rossia.