ENGELS TO KARL KAUTSKY
IN STUTTGART
London, 28 September 1891
Dear Kautsky,
I was on the point of writing to you about the programme when your letter arrived.
Your draft programme is far better than the official one and I note with pleasure that Bebel will propose it be accepted. I shall back him up there. You have avoided the only fault of your first draft — length — and have outdone the official one in brevity. However I should like to make the following suggestions[1] :
Section 1, pp. 785/86 of the Neue Zeit, para. 2, line 3: Growth of the product of human labour rather than yield. Marx has pointed out how ambiguous is the word yield which can mean not only the product itself but also its value, or even the total price that happens to be realised.
Further: Private ownership of the means of production throughout. What is meant, of course, are the social means of production in their entirety or again those of one distinct working individual, peasant or artisan — in all these cases they are quite distinct and hence require the article. Omission of the article leaves one in doubt about the meaning, or so it seems to me, at any rate.
Section 2, Neue Zeit, p. 788, para. 1 has been edited somewhat inadequately. 'Which suffers under today's conditions' is much too weak. It would have been better to say that the ruling classes are also being intellectually and morally crippled by the class contradiction, more so indeed than the class that is oppressed. You could edit it into shape, provided you agree. The concluding sentence to the effect that the proletariat is the only class whose interests, etc.,... are pressing is also weak. I should prefer 'whose liberation is impossible without the socialisation of the means of production', or something of the sort.
Para. 2.... 'Without political rights they cannot embark on their economic struggles' — or establish their organisation as a militant class (what they need for their economic struggles and their organisation as a militant class is a measure of political freedom and equal rights that will grow with their successes?) — the remainder as in text.
Unfortunately I have no time for more than these brief suggestions as I'm inundated with jobs of every description.
I haven't yet managed to read Ede's article.[2]
In your first article you, too, dabble a bit in 'Utopia'. When and in what country did the things happen which you describe between p. 726 ('this metamorphosis was coincident with another') and p. 730? It seems to me that for the sake of convenience you dished up a grand pot-pourri of the times and places of various schools of thought. But there's nothing wrong in that; the great majority of your readers won't notice and each can take from it whatever suits his own particular book.
Thank you for the newspapers. It's a good thing that the party is strong enough to allow Liebknecht's speeches to pass, yet suffer no harm; as regards the paper,[3] which is more important, there will of course be a change before long. I must confess that the old man amazes me by the extent to which he has lagged behind. However we are now a power and as such are perfectly well able to lug along with us an heirloom of this kind and accord him the satisfaction of believing he has settled everything the moment he invents a formula that sets his mind at rest over whatever matter has happened to crop up.
Mr J. Wolf has also sent me concoction.[4] I have consigned it to my bookcase unread and there it will have to remain until I reach the preface to Volume III.[5] The letter you posted in Neumünster has now reached me. It reads:
'Zurich, 20 September 1891. Dear Sir, In the latest number of Conrad's Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, a Jew from Brno by the name of Wolf, who teaches at the Polytechnic here, has the cheek to accuse you of having misconstrued Marx's theory of value and hence of intending to suppress Volume III. Shall you give him a box on the ears? An Admirer.'
Hardly that, but I shall have to take a look at the rubbish nevertheless.
I wrote at once telling Schmidt that, while his solution was not the Marxian one, the book[6] contains such excellent stuff in other respects that I thought it the most important thing to have been done in the field of political economy since Marx's death.[7] Now, however, as soon as I have attended to current business, I shall apply myself relentlessly to Volume III and everything else will be cast aside.
C. Schmidt was in Berlin and, during the holidays, made a very good job of editing the Vorwärts; no doubt he will now take up the lectureship in Zurich secured for him by Stössel in defiance of the professors.
You are right to go to the Congress.[8] The chaps will have a great deal of fault to find with the Neue Zeit, but that can't be helped. You should listen to everything, be as sparing as possible with your answers and afterwards go your own way. So long as Bebel is in charge there's no doubt that everything will get back onto an even keel again.
We over here will put the Gillesiad to thoroughly good use. Hyndman & Co., who have seen the whole of their ambitious international intrigue with the Possibilists[9] come to grief in so lamentable a fashion, are furious, of course, and are at the back of the whole affair. Obviously we could want nothing better than that they should identify themselves with Gilles, though unfortunately they are already turning away. Courage is not the strong point of some of these gentlemen, as you know, nor is a box or two on the ears something they relish. Regards from Louise.
Your
F.E.
- ↑ The Editorial Board of Neue Zeit, in Nos 49-52 of the journal (1891), published four articles giving a detailed critique of the draft programme of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany published by the party Executive on 4 July 1891 (see Note 269). The first three articles, dealing with the theoretical section of the programme, were by Kautsky, the fourth, analysing the practical demands, was by Bernstein. The various criticisms were summarised in the form of a new draft programme, given in the concluding part of the fourth article (see also Note 322).
- ↑ The Editorial Board of Neue Zeit, in Nos 49-52 of the journal (1891), published four articles giving a detailed critique of the draft programme of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany published by the party Executive on 4 July 1891 (see Note 269). The first three articles, dealing with the theoretical section of the programme, were by Kautsky, the fourth, analysing the practical demands, was by Bernstein. The various criticisms were summarised in the form of a new draft programme, given in the concluding part of the fourth article (see also Note 322).
- ↑ Vorwärts
- ↑ J. Wolf, 'Das Rätsel der Durchschnittsprofitrate bei Marx'. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 2. Bd., 3. Folge.
- ↑ of Capital
- ↑ C. Schmidt, Die Durchschnittsprofitrate auf Grundlage des Marx'sehen Wertgesetzes.
- ↑ Presumably Engels means his letter to Conrad Schmidt of 17 October 1889 (see present edition, Vol. 48).
- ↑ The Erfurt Congress of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany met from 14 to 21 October 1891. It was attended by 258 delegates. The congress was preceded by a sharp ideological struggle between the party's revolutionary hard core and the Right- and Left-wing opportunists, who had stepped up their activities and created the atmosphere of a party crisis in German Social-Democracy. There had been sharp debates at meetings and in the press on the party's programme and tactics, set off by the public pronouncements of Georg von Vollmar, leader of the Bavarian Social-Democrats, who sought to impose an opportunist reformist tactics and lead the party away from class proletarian positions (see Note 270). Vollmar's campaign provided a pretext for fresh attacks on the party (summer and autumn 1891) by the Jungen, a petty-bourgeois semi-anarchist opposition group within German Social-Democracy formed in 1890. Their stronghold being the Social-Democratic organisation of Berlin, they were also known as the Berlin opposition. The group's specific character was determined by students and young literati claiming the role of the party's theoreticians and leaders. Foremost among them were Paul Ernst, Hans Müller, Paul Kampffmeyer, Bruno Wille, Karl Wilderberger and Wilhelm Werner. The Jungen ignored the fact that the repeal of the Anti-Socialist Law had changed the conditions the party was operating in. They denied the need to employ legal forms of struggle, opposed Social-Democracy's participation in parliamentary elections and use of the parliamentary platform and demagogically accused the party and its Executive of protecting the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, of opportunism and of violating party democracy. The leaders of the Berlin opposition levelled especially fierce attacks at the party's leaders — Bebel and Liebknecht. The sectarian anarchist activities of the Jungen held a grave danger to the party's unity. The paramount task facing the Erfurt Congress was to overcome the crisis in the party and consolidate its ranks. The congress discussed the report of the party Executive, the activities of Social-Democratic deputies in the Reichstag, the party's tactics, the draft of its new programme, and various organisational questions. The ideological struggle continued at the congress too, especially over party tactics. A report on this issue was presented by Bebel. He — in his report and speeches — as well as other speakers (above all Singer, Liebknecht and Fischer) gave a resolute rebuff both to the Left and to the Right opportunist elements. By a majority vote the congress endorsed Bebel's draft resolution on tactics. It pointed out that the main objective of the working-class movement was the conquest of political power by the proletariat and that this end would be attained not through a chance concatenation of circumstances but through persevering work with the masses and skillful employment of every form and method of proletarian class struggle. The resolution emphasised that the German Social-Democratic Party was a fighting party employing the traditional revolutionary tactics. Vollmar and his supporters, finding themselves in isolation, were forced to retreat. The congress expelled two leaders of the Jungen — Werner and Wilderberger — from the party for their splitting activities and slander; a number of other Jungen leaders announced their resignation from the party and walked out of the congress. The main achievement of the congress was the adoption of a new programme for German Social-Democracy. A report on it was presented by Liebknecht. The Erfurt Programme being essentially Marxist, was an important step forward compared with the Gotha Programme. The Lassallean reformist dogmas had been dropped. The new programme scientifically substantiated the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism and its replacement with socialism, and pointed out that, in order to be able to restructure society along socialist lines, the proletariat must win political power. At the same time, the programme had serious shortcomings, the principal one being its failure to state that the dictatorship of the proletariat was the instrument of the socialist transformation of society. Also missing were propositions concerning the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a democratic republic, the remoulding of Germany's political system and other important matters. In this respect, the criticisms made by Engels in A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Programme of 1891 (see present edition, Vol. 27, pp. 217-34) also apply to the version of the programme adopted in Erfurt. The resolutions of the Erfurt congress showed that Marxism had firmly taken root in Germany's working-class movement.
- ↑ See this volume, pp. 237-38.