Letter to Wilhelm Liebknecht, December 28, 1892

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 28 December 1892


First published in Wilhelm Liebknecht, Briefwechsel mit Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, The Hague, 1963
Printed according to the original
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 50

ENGELS TO WILHELM LIEBKNECHT

IN BERLIN

London, 28 December 1892

Dear Liebknecht,

A Happy New Year to you, your wife[1] and your children. As regards the French, I pointed out to Lafargue more than a week ago that now's the time.[2] However, it's quite possible that the chaps don't want to expend their powder too soon. To begin with, the Panama affair[3] is still in its early stages, the more important revelations won't come till after the New Year, and so far nothing serious has been proven, legally speaking, against any living parliamentarian; in January, both Radicals[4] and Monarchists may find themselves well and truly in the soup and then it will be possible to speak up far more effectually. Secondly, there are, in the Chamber, not only Marxists but also Blanquists,[5] Allemanists[6] and free lances à la Cluseret— not to mention complete reprobates such as Lachize and Thivrier who have latched on to our coat-tails—and, with the socialist groups in Parliament differing as they do, it would be easy for the others to give them as good as they got, so to speak. Now an attempt is being made to find a common basis for action. If this succeeds, as seems probable, it will be easier to get something done.

I tender this merely as a possible explanation for the chaps' silence. In this country we have long had to contend with Bonnier's enthusiasm. He fairly peppered us with shot over the May Day business.[7] I drew his attention to your statement in the Vorwärts in which you said that at Marseilles you had given the chaps advance notice of what the Germans' attitude would be on 1 May '93, and that they had declared themselves satisfied.[8]

So they have no right to complain. I then went on to tell him that, what with Panama in Paris, the military business in Berlin[9] and a general industrial crisis into the bargain, there might be something better for us to do on 1 May than demonstrate. Indeed, in Paris he would subsequently seem to have realised as much. The man has the best of intentions, but anyone wanting to have a finger in the pie of the labour movement of three countries has no business to live in Oxford. Cordial regards to you all,

Your F. E.

[Postscript from Louise Kautsky]

Dear Mrs Natalie,

May I associate myself with the General's[10] letter and his good wishes. Having myself answered the question in the affirmative, I wish you, your dear husband, and your children a very Happy New Year.

Sincerely yours,

Louise Kautsky

  1. ↑ Natalie Liebknecht
  2. ↑ See this volume, pp. 58-59.
  3. ↑ The Panama affair—a shady transaction connected with the bribery of French statesmen, government officials and the press by the Panama Canal joint-stock company set up in France in 1880 at the at the initiative of Ferdinand de Lesseps for building a canal across of the isthmus of Panama. In December 1888 the company declared its insolvency which caused the ruin of small-time shareholders and numerous bankruptcies. This scandal compelled the French authorities to start an investigation. On 19 November 1892 the Monarchists tabled three questions on the Panama crash in the Chamber of Deputies which on 21 November elected a Commission of Inquiry of 33 with M. Henri Brisson, a Radical, as chairman. The Commission obtained irrefutable evidence implicating a number of high-ranking officials, e.g., the former French premier CL. de Freycinet and others who had been bribed by the Lesseps company which wanted to conceal its true financial situation and embezzlements. French justice hushed up the affair by going no further than condemning F. Lesseps and a number of his cat's-paws (see Note 157). 'Panama' became a byword for major dealings in which government officials were implicated.
  4. ↑ Radicals—in the 1880s-1890s, a parliamentary group in France that used to belong to the party of moderate Republicans (the 'Opportunists'). The Radicals relied chiefly on the petty bourgeoisie and, to some extent, on the middle bourgeoisie; they supported certain bourgeois-democratic demands like a unicameral parliament, separation of the Church from the state, a progressive income tax, limitation of the working day and other social issues. The Radicals were led by G. Clemenceau. Officially the group became known as the Republican Radical and Radical-Socialist Party (Parti républicain radical et radical-socialiste), formed in 1901.
  5. ↑ Blanquists (les blanquistes)—supporters of Louis A. Blanqui who, after leaving the Workers' Party {Le Parti français ouvrier, see Note 11), set up an organisation of their own, the Central Revolutionary Committee (Comité Révolutionnaire Central) in 1880. After Blanqui's death in 1881, E. Vaillant, E. Eudes and E. Granger came into the Committee's leadership. The Blanquists upheld the slogan of a general strike and advocated the inde-pendence of labour unions from the party. They opted for political struggle at the expense of economic struggle. During Boulangism (see Note 6) the Blanquists broke into two factions; one with Edouard Vaillant at the head came out against General Boulanger and thus made common cause with the Workers' Party, while the other (E. Granger, E. Roche), having cooperated with the Boulangists, walked out of the Central Revolutionary Committee and fell apart soon after.
  6. ↑ Allemanists {les allemanistes)—supporters of the French socialist Jean Allemane. After a split in the Possibilist Party (see Note 30), the Allemanists formed a Revolutionary-Socialist Workers' Party {Le Parti ouvrier socialiste-révolutionnaire) in October 1890; this party existed up to 1905. Considering economic struggle above the political one and opposing excessive parliamentarism, the Allemanists concentrated their efforts on propaganda work in labour unions {les syndicats) and assigned the political party of the proletariat but a secondary role. A significant part of their activity was devoted to campaigns to win seats at municipal councils.
  7. ↑ The International Socialist Working-Men's Congress held in Brussels in 1891 (see Note 228) adopted a resolution which recommended, wherever it was possible, to combine May Day celebrations with work stoppages. All the delegates, including those from Germany, voted for this resolution, even though during the discussion on this issue the British and the German delegations had insisted on this action being held on the first Sunday of May. The Berlin Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party (see Note 51) passed a decision to celebrate May Day 1893 on the evening of May 1 and refrain from general work stoppages owing to the bad economic situation in the country.
  8. ↑ W. Liebknecht, 'Agitationsbericht Nach Marseille und zurück', Vorwärts, No. 239, 12 October 1892.
  9. ↑ An allusion to the draft law tabled in the Reichstag on 23 November 1892 by the War Minister Werd and the General Staff Chief Waldersee providing for an increase in the numerical strength of the German armed forces within the next seven years. The mean annual strength of this army was fixed at 492,068; it was proposed to introduce a two-year term of service in the Infantry, which could increase the war machine's throughput by 30 per cent. The planned increase in the strength of the land forces exceeded all the previous increments, as of 1874, combined. It was planned to compensate the significant growth in the war expenditures by raising taxes on consumer goods. This elicited widespread discontent among the popular masses and with some bourgeois political parties as well. On 6 May 1893 the Reichstag majority rejected the draft bill of the government. The same day the Kaiser dissolved the Reichstag two years ahead of time. After a new election, in June 1893, a similar draft law was endorsed by the Reichstag.
  10. ↑ F. Engels' nickname