Letter to Carl Hirsch, March 19, 1895

ENGELS TO CARL HIRSCH

IN COLOGNE

London, 19 March 1895
41 Regent's Park Road, N. W.

Dear Hirsch,

I am willing to oblige you, 555 but only on two conditions: 1. that the matter remains strictly between ourselves, for otherwise I shall get a hundred such requests for advance criticism; and what I do for one person I cannot refuse to do for others—in which case I might as well throw up the sponge. 2. That this is the last time you ask me to do anything of this kind. I get more things sent to me in a week than I can read in a month, but if I am to criticise them into the bargain, I shall be in even worse case.

P. 4. Onesided}. This is far less the case in big industry than in manu- facture. On the contrary, big industry does to a large extent eliminate the disabling effect of manufacture, although it produces a similar effect of its own, which last may be exacerbated by the intensification of labour. From what I know of big industry, I should say that in your case this point is given more emphasis than is justified by the circumstances. The division of labour is, and will continue to be, the chief cause of the disablement of labour.

P. 6. - 'in every case overproduction, crises'. May, has a tendency to— realisation by no means inevitable. 'Spiral movement'—seems to me too general a term. What mode of production have you in mind here? 'The minimum of socially necessary labour time'—if this is supposed to be the time needed to produce the gross social product, it is meaningless so far as capitalist society is concerned, since in its apportionment among individual workers, the industrial reserve army is wholly left out of account.

P. 15. 'Everywhere' (etc., up till the end of the sentence)—this is ex- pressed very obscurely, to say the least and, as it stands, is a contradiction. First, the increase in the products of labour is said to give rise to 'a gain as such' and then to a 'loss of value, which is at least a possibility'. This will not do unless explanatory and delimiting intermediate links are provided.

P. 18. 'The capital of the working man is his own person.' That sounds very nice, but in this context the word capital loses every vestige of meaning. Why the devil must you go and translate things that are sensible into nonsensical philistine cliches? What you say here is quite beyond my comprehension. Similarly on p. 18, no. 2. The concentration of labour re- sulting from improvements in machinery is all of a sudden supposed to be unhealthy. It may be so, and very often is, in the capitalist system but of itself it is no more unhealthy than is eating and digesting on the following page. Not only will it not cease, but we shall be able to augment it considerably because, with it, we shall get compensation for the workers. Other incidental comments—should there ever be a second edition, I would advise you to substantiate what are, after all, very generalised arguments by providing specific examples, citing facts relating to various branches of industry and, in general, indicating which industries you are referring to. E.g., your propositions are true of the highly developed English textile industry only in a very limited sense. On the other hand, they may be far more true of Germany where big industry is still in its infancy and is only just coming into its own in a whole number of branches of production in which old methods are being superseded and the intensity of labour suddenly augmented. However, these are merely transitional stages. The main thing, when dealing with economic and, more especially industrial matters of this kind, is not to succumb to parochialism. Seen for what they are, these transitional phases are of undeniable importance, but one must also recognise and say that that is what they are and nothing else. And your immediate surroundings provide you with the most splendid opportunity for presenting all your propositions as having been deduced from real life, while you yourself will learn something in the process.

Now, do your best in the Cologne by-election 556 so that we may at least win here. And if by chance you should be writing to me again, let me know if the old house, behind Hutmacher, where the Neue Rheinische Zeitung used to be, is still no. 17 and whether the owner of the sweatshop who now lives there is called Salomon or Lewi—I have forgotten.

So far you have been conducting your battle with the Centre 71 quite nicely, but it seems to me that you might castigate the conduct of the Liebers et al in the Reichstag rather more often in your leading articles. 557

Many regards,

Yours,

F.E.