Letter to Paul Lafargue, August 22, 1894

ENGELS TO PAUL LAFARGUE

AT LE PERREUX

Eastbourne, 22 August 1894

4 Royal Parade

My dear Lafargue,

Here we are at Eastbourne since the past week, 393 Louise, her husband and I. I needed it badly and the ozonised sea air is already taking effect. Unfortunately it has been raining more than necessary since yesterday.

Your cheque will arrive during the first days of next month as soon as I shall have had some payments.

I am very curious to see how they are going to administer the new law against suspects. 383 I am by no means sure that they will not use it against the Socialists as much as against the anarchists at a given moment. But though a few individuals may suffer by it, this law will certainly do for you what the '78 law did for the Germans; 15 you will defeat it and you will emerge from the struggle infinitely stronger than you went into it.

Here the Social Democratic Federation, 44 which for a time seemed to try to adopt a reasonable and tolerable line of conduct, has suddenly fallen back on the Hyndmanniads of yore. At the Congress which they held in London a fortnight or three weeks ago, 404 the Liverpool delegate moved that at the next general elections they should support the Independent Labour Party 114 candidates provided they publicly declared themselves Socialists. This, against all the rules of English procedure, was turned down in favour of a motion adopted by 42 to 12, that the duty of every Socialist was to belong to an openly revolutionary socialist organisation, such as the Social Democratic Federation (and as the S.D.F. claims that apart from itself there is no other, this meant: belong to the S.D.F.). As for electoral tactics, this was delegated to a committee which will report to the Executive Committee. You know of course that the nationalisation of the means of production is an integral part of the I.L.P. programme. Thus, the reciprocity which hitherto has existed in the North (particularly in Lancashire and Yorkshire) between the two groups, is to all intents and purposes rejected by the S.D.F. which proclaims the policy of

the Caliph Omar in burning the Alexandria library: either these books are contrary to the Koran, in which case they are bad; or they contain the same thing, in which case they are superfluous—into the flames with them! And these people claim the leadership of the socialist movement in Britain!

But there is worse to come. Hyndman has stated that it was time for socialism to detach itself outright from trade unionism, and that instead of joint congresses of the two, there should be an out and out socialist congress. And, as it was realised at the same time that it is still too early to strike a direct blow against the 1896 Congress, 392 they resolved that the S.D.F. should convene an exclusively socialist Congress to be held in London three days before the general Congress of 1896.

What will the continentals say to that? Will they go to such a congress in order later to attend the large, our congress, tied hand and foot by the resolutions passed two or three days earlier 1 in a small committee? Will they provoke a split between the delegates who are thoroughgoing Socialists and those who are not yet that but are on the point of becoming so? Will they administer this slap in the face to the British trade unionists, who have made such progress since the New Unionism 405 has set them on the road towards socialism, who at Belfast in 1893 402 voted for the nationalisation of the means of production (adopted a few weeks ago in the political programme of even the recalcitrant London Trades Council 197) and which, in a fortnight's time, at Norwich 396 will be stating its position in relation to us once again?

But do you know how the S.D.F. in its annual report and the speeches at a conference depicted the strength of that organisation which claims to change the Zurich resolutions 229 (for this is a palpable emendation which contradicts the Zurich resolution)? It has—4,500 members. Last year 7,000 names passed through its membership list, so it has lost 2,500! But what of it? asks Hyndman. In the 14 years of its existence the S.D.F. has seen a million people pass through its ranks. What organisation! Out of one million, 995,500 have hopped it, but—4,500 have stayed!

Now for the key to all these idiocies, inconceivable without that key. The 1896 Congress will not leave untouched any of the sects, fractions, groups, etc. which compose what one calls here Organised Labour. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Congress 28 would very much like to boss the Congress. There are already motions tabled on the agenda for the Trades Congress at Norwich (September) to confine admission of British delegates to the '96 Congress only to those qualified for the Trades Congress: bona fide workingmen, working or having worked at the trade they represent. And it is said that they are not a little desirous of extending this system to the continental delegates as well, which would cause explosions of laughter violent enough to shake all London to its foundations. Very well, the S.D.F., which, in its turn, thinks the opportunity has come for it to boss the Congress and, through Congress, the British movement, appears to have taken these rumours as an excuse to launch its little counter-plan.

So far it is only a feeler. But as soon as the S. D. F. issues an invitation circular or something of that kind, the matter will take on substance, and the continental parties will be called upon to come to a decision.

One question: Le Socialiste lebt or noch, oder aber ist er tot?^[1] Since April we haven't seen a trace of it. If you have succeeded in killing it, do you count this as one of the Party's victories in France?

Whatever the case, the two months of September and October will be interesting. Towards the 5, the Trades Congress, at Norwich 396 (after the Spanish congress 390 next Sunday), then your congress at Nantes, 406 then the Germans at Frankfurt on 21 October. 418 The last two will be dealing with the question of peasants and farm workers. Overall, the views of the two national groups are the same, only that you intransigent revolutionaries of the bygone days are now inclining a little more towards opportunism than the Germans, who probably will not support any measure which might serve to maintain or conserve small property against the corrosive action of capitalism. On the other hand, they will agree with you that it is not our task to accelerate or intensify this corrosive action, and that a most important thing is to organise small property-holders into agricultural associations to cultivate land in common and on a large scale. I am curious to see which of the two congresses will show itself to be the more advanced in economic theory and propose the more effective practical measures.

Give my greetings to Laura and remind her that she owes me a letter. Greetings from the Freybergers.

Yours,

F.E.

In a couple of weeks the Neue Zeit will have an article from me on the origins of Christianity.^[2] The 3rd volume^[3] is underway, 43 sheets are written; I am writing the Preface.