| Author(s) | Friedrich Engels |
|---|---|
| Written | 19 November 1892 |
ENGELS TO AUGUST BEBEL
IN BERLIN
London, 19 November 1892
Dear August,
This time your Party Congress[1] didn't go off as brilliantly as it did on the last occasion. The debate on the question of salary leaves a very nasty taste in one's mouth—not that I think the English or French would have done any better in that respect—though Louise refuses to admit as much. As I know from long experience, what we are up against here is one of the limitations imposed upon the outlook of working men by the conditions under which they have lived hitherto. The same people who think it perfectly natural for their idol Lassalle to have a private income and live the life of a consummate sybarite are denouncing Liebknecht for wanting, as their paid editor, barely one-third of that sum, although the paper yields them five or six times as much.[2] To be dependent, even on a labour party, is a hard lot. And, quite aside from the question of money, it's a most otiose position for anyone with any initiative to be editor of a paper belonging to the party. Marx and I were always agreed that we would never accept such a position and that the only paper we could have was one that was not financially dependent even on the party itself.
If taken too far, your 'nationalisation' of the press[3] would have very material drawbacks. It's absolutely essential for you to have a press in the party which is not directly dependent on the Executive or even the Party Congress, i.e. which is in a position unreservedly to oppose individual party measures within the programme and accepted tactics, and freely to criticise that programme and those tactics, within the limits of party decorum. As the Party Executive, you people ought to encourage a press of this nature— indeed initiate it, for you would then exert far more moral sway over it than if it were to come into being partly against your will. The party is outstripping the strict discipline of earlier days; with 2 or 3 millions and an influx of 'heddicated' elements, more latitude is needed than what has hitherto not only sufficed but actually proved a useful restraint. The sooner you people adapt yourselves and the party to this changed situation the better. And the first step is a formally independent party press. It is bound to come about but it would be better if you were to allow it to come about in such a way that it remains under your moral sway from the outset and does not arise in opposition to yourselves.
You people blundered badly—not in Berlin but at Brussels[4] — over the question of the May Day celebrations. You must have known at the time what you could promise and perform, and yet you went and promised more than you are now able to perform. I consider your own speech on the subject no whit inferior to Victor's and readily believe that a stoppage of work in Germany would demand sacrifices out of all proportion to victories and gains.[5] But when the strongest party in the world suddenly sounds a retreat in this way, the general impression this produces is very bad. Noblesse oblige. You are the fighting force, the corps de bataille of the modern labour movement and, what you promised in Brussels, you were morally bound to do. Now, while it is undoubtedly better not to follow up one stupidity with another, far greater one—granted the crucial importance just now is not to interrupt the German party's victorious progress—you should nevertheless consider what kind of impression this Berlin resolution is going to make on the world at large. The affair would also seem to have aroused indignation in France and the chaps there will doubtless be giving you a piece of their mind. You cannot afford to inflict such moral injury upon yourselves again—so in Zurich you must have the courage of your convictions and declare outright that you cannot commit yourselves to a stoppage of work; then, though people may be angry with you, they will not be able to reproach you with breaking your word and beating a retreat.[6] It is nonsensical to try and organise the movement uniformly in each individual country. The Austrians, to whom a stoppage of work on May Day is necessary, and who are accordingly prepared to make those very sacrifices which you rightly repudiated in your particular circumstances, are as justified in acting as they do as you were; now, however, they can make reproaches to which you can offer no answer. For by their very conduct they have proved that the impossibility clause laid down at Brussels does not apply.
We over here have not yet had the state socialism debate. I must congratulate you on your resolutions. They are really first-rate and I know of only one person who could have improved on them, namely Marx. The resolution on state socialism, like that on anti-Semitism, hits the nail on the head. And it is precisely resolutions of this kind that have in the past been the Achilles' heel of the German movement; they have been sloppy, indeterminate, nebulous and cliché-ridden—in short, for the most part a disgrace. Fortunately they are so untranslatable that anyone translating them into a foreign language is compelled to read into them a meaning which they themselves do not possess.
Below is a theatre drawn by Louise or Aveling. For the past week the page thus embellished has been repeatedly placed amongst my writing paper, which is why it now has the honour of finding its way to you.[7]
Enclosed you will find[8] the twaddle talked by the seven Swabians[9] of London—the Fabians[10] of the Chronicle[11] —about the Party Congress. The poor souls are in a mess. The great Shaw, having in May urged upon you the necessity of collusion with the Liberals and demonstrated that, failing such a policy, nothing could result but defeat and disgrace[12] , now admits in a speech to the Democratic Club that they have been scandalously done in the eye by the Liberals and that all they had reaped on the occasion of the elections was—defeat and disgrace; also that the Liberals, together with the Tories, are now out to do the workers in the eye! And these are the people who propose to teach you 'practical politics'! In fact he now actually says that the two old parties have but one and the same policy and that, barring them, there is nothing but—Social Democracy! This will, I think, have the effect of a cold douche on our good Ede.[13] Cordial regards to your wife and all the friends.
Your
F. E. (in the stage box)
[Postscript from Louise Kautsky]
Love from the Witch herself; my enthusiasm for May Day isn't quite so extreme.