Letter to Karl Marx, December 10, 1851

To Marx in London

Manchester, 10 December 1851

Dear Marx,

What are the great men doing in this EVENTFUL CRISIS? It is said that L. Blanc has been arrested in France, but this cannot alas be true; nous connaissons notre petit bonhomme.^[1] By the way, since nothing has come of the Paris insurrection,^[2] I'm glad that the first storm is over. On such occasions, tout blasé qu'on est,^[3] one is always to some extent gripped by the old political fever and one always has some personal interest in the upshot of such a business. Now I can at least resume my ethnological study upon which I was engaged at the onset of this great coup.

By the way, in spite of all this there's no sign of a return of confiance,^[4] either here or in Liverpool, and P. Ermen alone is as cocksure and as faithful to Napoleon as 4 days ago he was DEJECTED and CHAPFALLEN. By and large the bourgeois here are too shrewd to regard this Napoleonic farce as anything other than ephemeral. But what is to come of the whole dirty business? Napoleon will be elected, no question of that, the bourgeoisie has no choice, and who is to verify the ballot-papers? To make a wrong count in favour of the adventurer is too much of a temptation, and the full measure of the French property-owning class's turpitude, its servile abjection in the face of the slightest success, its habit of crawling before a pouvoir quelconque,^[5] have this time come more splendidly to light than ever before. But how does the jackass propose to rule? He will receive fewer votes than in 1848, c'est clair,^[6] perhaps 3 to 3½ million in all; that is already a dangerous setback so far as credit is concerned. Any financial and taxation reform is impossible 1. because of shortage of money, 2. because it can only be effected by a military dictator who wages successful wars abroad, où la guerre paie la guerre,^[7] whereas in peacetime any surplus, and a great deal more besides, inevitably finds its way into the pockets of the army, 3. because Napoleon is too stupid. What remains for him? La guerre!^[8] Against whom, against England perhaps? Or simple military despotism, which in peacetime must necessarily lead to a fresh military revolution and call into being the parties of the National Assembly within the army itself? Here there is no way out, the farce is bound to collapse. And what if a trade crisis comes!

That Louis Napoleon has something 'big' up his sleeve, I do not for a moment doubt. But I shall be curious to see what sort of foolishness it will be. The développement of the Napoleonic ideas^[9] will fly exceeding high and come a cropper over the most ordinary obstacles.

What emerges pretty clearly from the whole transaction is that the reds^[10] have abdicated, completely abdicated. To attempt to vindicate them now for not having defended themselves en masse would be nonsensical. The next few months will show whether prostration in France is such that several years' peace and quiet will be needed before the reds are capable of another '48. But where, on the other hand, is that peace and quiet to come from?

I see only 2 ways out of this beastly mess:

Either the factions of the party of order, as reflected in the army, now take the place of the 'anarchists', i.e. bring about such a state of anarchy that ultimately the reds and Ledru-Rollin will appear as saviours just as now Louis Napoleon; or Louis Napoleon abolishes the tax on drinks and lets himself be inveigled into introducing one or two bourgeois reforms—though where the money and power are to come from is hard to say. In this highly unlikely event he might be able to maintain his position.

Qu'en penses-tu?^[11]

Your

F. E.