Letter to Paul Lafargue, January 19, 1872

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 19 January 1872


First published in F. Engels, P. et L. Lafargue, Correspondance, t. I, Paris, 1956
Printed according to the original
Translated from the French
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 44


ENGELS TO PAUL LAFARGUE[1]

IN MADRID

London, 19 January 1872

My dear Toole,[2]

We were delighted to get your letter of the 7th. As for Morago, you may be sure that Bakunin is at the bottom of it. As private correspondents, these men are assiduous beyond belief; and if he [were] a member of the Alliance, they would certainly have bombarded him with letters and blandishments. At any rate, the fact that they have resolved to place all these questions before a Spanish Congress[3] is a victory for ourselves, since:

1) it is a negative, albeit indirect, reply to the demand that a Congress of the International be immediately convened;

2) we have always found that, as soon as the
workers themselves, as a body, consider these questions, their natural common sense and their innate feeling of solidarity invariably enable them speedily to smell out such personal machinations. For working men, the International represents a great acquisition which they have no intention at all of relinquishing; for the aforesaid doctrinaire intriguers, it represents no more than an arena for petty squabbles of a personal and sectarian kind.

In our reply we shall endeavour to make the maximum use of your observations; however, we cannot limit ourselves to what might best suit the Spaniards. The sorely assailed Swiss want just the opposite. However, I hope that we shall be able to write in such a way as to satisfy all our friends on the main points.

There have been requests from several quarters for a new impression of the Poverty of Philosophy, for which a new introduction would, of course, be required, and I hope that Moor will attend to this as soon as his work on the second edition of Capital[4] is completed; if, in the meantime, Mesa were to do the Spanish translation, he would probably get the text of the introduction in good time. But I cannot promise anything; you can imagine the amount of unexpected work that constantly devolves on Moor. He has entered into an agreement with Lachâtre[5] ; the contract contained one or two quite inadmissible

clauses. No doubt Jenny or Tussy will write, either to you or to Laura, and enlarge on the matter.

Now for the news. 1) Over here the French section of 1871,[6] a section which had never been accepted as such because of its refusal to delete utterly incredible things from its rules, has completely disintegrated—at the very moment when it was bringing out a long metaphysical declaration against the General Council, signed by 35 citizens.[7]

The election of Vésinier as secretary has caused Theisz, Avrial & Co. to resign (for the second time!). The Vésinier clique next demanded the expulsion of Vermersch, a worthy rival to Vésinier, both as a private individual and as a man of politics. There followed another split, thus creating three rumps. This is group autonomy at its most extreme.

On the other hand we have over here a French section of 60 members,[8] an Italian section and a Polish one, aside from the old German section.[9] The calumnies in the Berlin Neuer Social-Demokrat were the work of some of Schweitzer's hoodlums who had wormed their
way into that
section; they have just
been expelled.[10] —The British Federal Council[11] is now functioning and its propaganda is proving very successful; we are especially anxious to build up support outside the old semi-bourgeois political societies and the old TRADES UNIONS, which are incapable of seeing beyond their trades. In Manchester, Dupont has been very useful to us. The republican clubs of Dilke & Co. adhere to the International in all the larger cities, and the best elements of almost all those clubs belong to us, so that one fine day this bourgeois republican movement will escape from its bourgeois leaders and fall into our hands.

I was greatly pleased by the article on the Neuer Social-Demokrat in the Emancipation[12] I at once translated and sent it to the Volksstaat, Liebknecht's newspaper in Leipzig.[13]

In France Serraillier is being amazingly active. Needless to say, the results he has obtained are not for publication, but they are very good. Everywhere the sections are reforming under different names. One fact disclosed by this correspondence is that, in almost every case, the Bakuninists' correspondents are informers. In one town in the Midi, their member was the superintendent of police.[14]

It has now been almost proved that Marchand of Bordeaux is an

informer. As you may know, he mislaid the minutes of two meetings; well, all those mentioned in the said minutes have been taken to court, and the same intentions were harboured in regard to yourself. Marchand has never been able to explain what became of those minutes and, though proscribed in Geneva, he was able to return to Bordeaux without being harassed.

In Switzerland, not only has the Romance Committee, which represents at least ten times more Internationalists than the Jurassians, come out in favour of the General Council,[15] but also the Tagwacht of Zurich, organ of the Internationalists of German Switzerland (see No. 1 of 6 January).[16] The question it puts to those who speak of the authoritarian power wielded by the General Council is as follows:

'A dictatorship always presupposes the possession by the dictator of the material power that would enable him to enforce his dictatorial orders. Now, all these journalists would greatly oblige us if they would kindly let us know where the General Council keeps its arsenal of bayonets and mitrailleuses.[17] Suppose, for example, that the Zurich section should not be in agreement with this or that decision of the General Council (something which has not hitherto occurred), to what means could the General Council have recourse in order to compel the Zurich section to bow to that decision? But the General Council has not even the right definitively to exclude any one section from the Association—at the very most it can suspend its functions until the next Congress, which alone can give a final ruling... The most divergent views, not only in regard to the future organisation of society, but also in regard to the steps to be taken here and now, are represented in the great international association. That association, at its general congresses, does of course debate questions of this kind, but in no article of its Rules does it lay down a system, an obligatory norm for the sections. There is nothing obligatory save the fundamental principle: The emancipation of the workers by the workers themselves... Thus, in the International we find represented the most opposing political views, from the strict centralism of the Austrian workers to the anarchic federalism of the Spanish confederates. These last proclaim abstention from elections; the German confederates make full use of their votes in every election. In certain countries the Internationalists support other more or less progressive parties, elsewhere they remain aloof, as a distinct party, no matter what the circumstances. Nowhere, however, are there monarchists amongst the Internationalists. The same thing applies to questions of social economy. Communists and individualists work side by side, and it may be said that all forms of socialism are represented in the International...[18] However, the International has always shown itself capable of closing its ranks against the outside enemy,... it has succeeded in maintaining its unity in the face of the Franco-Prussian War and, from that war, it has emerged bigger and stronger, whereas other societies have been crushed by the war. To a man, the International sided with the Paris Commune... And does the fact that this or that group holds a different view on questions of detail entitle the bourgeois press to talk of splits in the International?...

You have only to read the circular from the Jura sections, protesting against this and that, but ending with the cry: "Long live the International Working Men's Association!" Is that a split? No, gentlemen, despite your efforts, the International will not be subject to splits, it will settle its own internal affairs and reveal itself more united and with its ranks more serried than ever... the more you calumniate us, the more you talk of splits in our ranks, the more you attack us—the more shall we serry our ranks and the louder will the cry resound: Long live the International Working Men's Association!'

If you can make use of this for the Emancipation, so much the better.

In Germany the Volksstaat has come out with considerable force against the Jurassians and in favour of the General Council.[19]

Furthermore, on 7 January the Saxon Congress, with 120 delegates representing 60 sections, held a private meeting (being forbidden by law to debate the matter publicly) at which they unanimously condemned the Jura circular and passed a vote of confidence in the General Council.[20]

The Austrians and Hungarians are also unanimous in their support of the General Council, though prevented by persecution from giving public proof of same; they can hardly ever meet, and any meeting in the name of the International is at once prohibited or broken up by the police.

In Italy no organisation so far exists. So autonomous are the groups that they will not or cannot unite. This is a reaction to the extreme and bourgeois centralism of Mazzini, who aspired to control everything himself, and very stupidly at that. By slow degrees enlightenment will dawn, but they will have to be allowed to learn from experience.

You say nothing about your wife[21] —I hope that you have had good news of her and also of the little boy.[22] Mrs Marx, who is with me at the moment, and the whole of the Marx family, SEND THEIR LOVE. Cordial salutations from my wife[23] and from myself also. Remember me to Laura when you write to her, and let me hear from you soon.

Yours ever,

The General[24]

  1. ↑ This is a reply to Lafargue's letter of 7 January 1872, in which he wrote that the Spanish Federal Council had rejected the Bakuninists' proposal on the convocation of an extraordinary Congress but supported the decision of the Belgian Federation to consider the revision of the General Rules at the next Congress. Knowing that Marx and Engels were working on the Fictitious Splits in the International, the General Council's reply to the Sonvillier circular, Lafargue warned them against being too personal. In conclusion he wrote that he had made arrangements with José Mesa to have Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy translated into Spanish (see Note 456).
    The letter was published in English for the first time in: Frederick Engels, Paul and Laura Lafargue, Correspondence, Vol. I: 1868-1886, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1959.
  2. ↑ Paul Lafargue's nickname
  3. ↑ The second congress of the Spanish Federation of the International was held in Saragossa on 4-11 April 1872, attended by 45 delegates representing 31 local federations. The congress voted down the demand of Swiss Bakuninists that a General Congress be convened without delay, but, under the influence of the anarchists, decided to support the revision of the General Rules proposed by the Belgian Federation with a view to granting greater autonomy to the local sections. Opposing the Bakuninists, the congress ruled the expulsion of the editors of La Emancipation from the Federation to be illegal and restored their rights. However, when it came to electing the new Federal Council the Bakuninists managed to fill it mostly with members of the Alliance.
  4. ↑ A reference to the 'Circulaire à toutes les fédérations de l'Association Internationale des Travailleurs' adopted at Sonvillier on 12 November 1871 (see Note 374). It was printed in La Emancipation, the organ of the Spanish Federal Council, on 25 December 1871.
  5. ↑ In his letter to Marx of 28 November 1871 Meissner wrote that almost the whole of the first German edition of Volume I of Capital, issued in 1867, had been sold out. He suggested that Marx should start preparing the second German edition (see Note 145).
  6. ↑ The French Section of 1871 was formed in London in September of that year by French refugees. The leaders of the Section established close contacts with Bakuninists in Switzerland. The Rules of the French Section of 1871, published in Qui Vive!, its official newspaper, were submitted to the General Council at its extraordinary meeting on 16 October 1871 and referred to a special commission (see Note 341). At the General Council meeting of 17 October Marx tabled a resolution on behalf of the commission (present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 24-27), recommending that the Section bring several paragraphs of its Rules into line with the Rules of the International. In its letter of 31 October signed by Augustin Avrial, the Section rejected the General Council resolution. This reply was discussed in the commission and at the General Council meeting of 7 November 1871. Auguste Serraillier, Corresponding Secretary for France, submitted a resolution written by Marx, which was adopted unanimously by the Council (see present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 37-42). In December 1871 the French Section of 1871 split up into a number of groups. In some of his letters Marx called this section French Section No. 2 to distinguish it from the French Section in London, established in 1865 (see Note 50).
  7. ↑ Association internationale des travailleurs. Déclaration de la section française fédéraliste de 1871...
  8. ↑ The reference is to the French-Language Section in London, formed in November 1871 by the proletarian elements from among the Paris Commune refugees. On 18 November 1871 the Section adopted its Rules, which were approved by the General Council in February 1872. The French-Language Section in London included Marguerittes, Le Moussu, De Wolffers, etc., and supported the General Council in its campaign against the petty-bourgeois stand adopted by some of the French refugees (Vermersch, etc.).
  9. ↑ By the old German section Engels means the German Workers' Educational Society in London (see Note 135).
  10. ↑ See this volume, p. 297.
  11. ↑ The 1871 London Conference, on Marx's initiative, instructed the General Council to establish a Federal Council for England. The General Council itself had acted as such from the International's foundation to the autumn of 1871. In October 1871 a provisional London Federal Council was formed from representatives of the International's London Section and some of the trade unions. From the outset it was dominated by a group of reformists headed by John Hales, Secretary of the General Council. They attempted to set the Federal Council against the General Council. Following the Hague Congress of 1872 the left wing of the Federal Council, supported by Marx and Engels, constituted itself the British Federal Council.
  12. ↑ 'Sucesos de la semana', La Emancipation, No. 31, 14 January 1872.
  13. ↑ A reference to the editorial statement in the 'Sucesos de la semana' column published by La Emancipation, No. 31, 14 January 1872, which described the Neuer Social-Demokrat as a newspaper which had sold out to Bismarck. This piece was translated by Engels and published by Der Volksstaat, No. 10, 3 February 1872.
  14. ↑ Abel Bousquet
  15. ↑ 'Réponse du Comité fédéral romand...', L'Égalité, No. 24, 24 December 1871.
  16. ↑ Engels is referring to the Romance Federal Committee's official reply to the Sonvillier circular, which was approved at the meeting of 20 December 1871 (see Note 410), and to the article headed 'Die Internationale' and carried by Die Tagwacht, No. 1, 6 January 1872. Below, Engels quotes this article in French.
  17. ↑ Mitrailleuse—a multi-barrelled, rapid-fire gun mounted on a heavy carriage. The mitrailleuse used in the French army in 1870-71 had 25 barrels that fired in succession by means of a special mechanism. It could fire up to 175 shots a minute with carbine cartridges. However, the experience of the Franco-Prussian War showed the mitrailleuse to be unsuited to battlefield conditions due to construction inadequacies.
  18. ↑ In the Tagwacht: '...and it may be said that there is no socio economic view that is not represented in the International'.
  19. ↑ Cf. F. Engels, 'The Congress of Sonvillier and the International' (published in Der Volksstaat, No. 3, 10 January 1872).
  20. ↑ The Congress of Saxonian Social-Democrats was held in Chemnitz on 6-7 January 1872. It was attended by 120 delegates, among them Bebel and Liebknecht, representing nearly 60 local organisations. In closed session the congress considered its attitude to the Sonvillier circular (see Note 374) and the battle against the anarchists in the International. Having rejected the circular and approved the resolutions of the London Conference, the congress gave its unanimous support to the General Council.
  21. ↑ Laura Lafargue, who was in San Sebastian at the time
  22. ↑ Charles Etienne Lafargue
  23. ↑ Lydia Burns
  24. ↑ Engels' nickname