Letter to Wilhelm Liebknecht, January 2, 1872

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 2 January 1872


First published, in Russian, in Marx-Engels Archives, Vol. I (VI), Moscow, 1932
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 44


ENGELS TO WILHELM LIEBKNECHT

IN LEIPZIG

London, 2 January 1872[1]

Dear Liebknecht,

First of all, Happy New Year, and then the proofs[2] enclosed.

Marx or Tussy will have written to you about the Stieberian escapade in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.[3] It was so transparent that no correspondence was needed to convince you of the deception; the cost of a telegram would have been money thrown away. You did right to denounce the thing as a forgery at once. Compare the names, most of which are false, with the correct ones under the Conference resolutions and you will have direct proof of the forgery.[4]

Marx still has your letter,[5] so I cannot answer it point by point. At all events, you have to find a form that will make it possible for you to be represented at the next congress, and if no one can come, you could have yourselves represented by the old guard here. Since in all probability the Bakuninists and Proudhonists will leave no stone unturned, the credentials will be closely scrutinised and being delegated, for instance, by Bebel and yourself personally, as was the case with the conference credentials sent to me, would not make a good impression. The Spaniards are in as bad a position as you but have not let themselves be side-tracked. Incidentally, the decision of the court in Brunswick does not set a precedent. A downright disgrace like that, where even the laws of the Federal Diet can be dragged in, could only happen in a decadent small state. Bebel ought to protest against it in the Reichstag; the men of Progress[6] would either have to support him or stand compromised before the whole of Germany. If I can find the time I shall send a (legal) critique of this pettifogging judgment to the Volksstaat.[7]

In Spain, according to a report from Lafargue (who is or was in Madrid), things are going well—the Bakuninists have overshot the mark with the violence of their manner. The Spaniards are workers and want unity and organisation above all else. You will have received the last circular of the congress in Sonvillier,[8] in which they attack the Basle administrative resolutions as the source of all evil. That is really the last straw and we shall now take action.

In the meantime, Hins, Steens and Co., in Belgium, have played us a fine trick (see the resolution of the Brussels Congress in L'Internationale[9] ). De Paepe shamefully let them make a fool of him; he wrote that all was well. However, up to now this opposition has kept itself within the bounds of legality and will likewise be dealt with when the time is ripe. Apart from De Paepe, the Belgians were never anything much.

A society in Macerata, in the Romagna, has nominated as its 3 honorary presidents: Garibaldi, Marx and Mazzini. This confusion will show you very clearly the state of public opinion among the Italian workers. Only Bakunin's name is needed and the mess is complete.

Cuttings from The Eastern Post (2 meetings)[10] to follow tomorrow; I do not have the last issue anymore and shall only get a copy at today's meeting.

Best wishes to yours and to Bebel.

Your

F. E.

Notabene. Have you changed your address? Braustrasse 11?

  1. ↑ The original mistakenly has '1871'.
  2. ↑ K. Marx, General Rules and Administrative Regulations of the International Working Men's Association (German edition).
  3. ↑ On 23 December 1871 the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 300, and on 28 December, the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 302, printed a report on the 1871 London Conference, including the texts of its resolutions. At Marx's request Eleanor Marx informed Liebknecht on 29 December (see this volume, p. 571) that the report was a falsification. On 30 December Der Volksstaat, No. 104, printed a statement in its 'Politische Uebersicht' column pointing out that the above-mentioned resolutions were falsified. Engels referred to it as the 'Stieberian escapade' after Wilhelm Stieber, the organiser of the trumped-up Communist trial in Cologne (1852). On the trial, see Note 138.
  4. ↑ Engels is referring to Liebknecht's letter of 23 December 1871.
  5. ↑ The Federal Diet (Bundestag), the central body of the German Confederation, was founded in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna. It consisted of representatives of the German states and met in Frankfurt am Main under the chairmanship of the Austrian delegate. Having neither an army nor financial means at its disposal the Diet did not have any real power; it ceased to exist in 1866.
  6. ↑ The Party of Progress was formed by members of the Prussian liberal bourgeoisie in June 1861. It advocated the unification of Germany under Prussian supremacy, the convocation of an all-German parliament, and the establishment of a liberal ministry responsible to the Chamber of Deputies. In 1866, after a split in the Party of Progress, its Right wing, the National Liberals (see Note 229), formed a separate party. Following the unification of Germany in 1871, the Left wing declared themselves the party of opposition, but this opposition remained only on paper.
  7. ↑ The Volksstaat did not carry Engels' article on the subject.
  8. ↑ The Congress of the Bakuninist Jura Federation held in Sonvillier on 12 November 1871 adopted the Sonvillier circular, 'Circulaire à toutes les fédérations de l'Association Internationale des Travailleurs'. It was directed against the General Council and the 1871 London Conference, and countered the Conference decisions with anarchist phrases about the sections' political indifferentism and complete autonomy. The Bakuninists proposed that all the federations demand the immediate convocation of a congress to revise the General Rules and to condemn the General Council's actions. The International's sections in Germany, Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, the USA, and also the Section in Milan, came out against the circular. Engels gave the Bakuninists a vigorous rebuff in his article 'The Congress of Sonvillier and the International' (present edition, Vol. 23).
  9. ↑ December 1871 in Brussels declined to back the demand of the Jura Federation that a General Congress of the International be convened without delay, yet at the same time instructed the Belgian Federal Council to draw up new draft Rules for the Association. Those behind the project were motivated by the desire to deprive the General Council of its powers. A short report on the congress was published in L'Internationale, No. 155, 31 December 1871, and also in Der Volksstaat, No. 5, 17 January 1872.
  10. ↑ Reports on the General Council meetings of 12 and 19 December, published in The Eastern Post, Nos. 168 and 169, 16 and 23 December 1871.