| Author(s) | Friedrich Engels |
|---|---|
| Written | 17 August 1881 |
ENGELS TO EDUARD BERNSTEIN
IN ZURICH
Bridlington Quay, Yorkshire,
17 August 1881
Dear Mr Bernstein,
Having spent the past 3 weeks at the seaside here, I am making the most of the bad weather that has set in to drop you a few lines be- fore I leave for home on Monday, the 22nd. If I have time, I shall also write to Kautsky,[1] but he will in any case very shortly be getting a re- ply and a copy of his article in The Labour Standard.
I presume the anti-Semitica got back to you all right; I sent them to Kautsky as you hadn't let me have a more precise address. Nev- er have I seen anything so stupid and puerile. This movement is of importance only in the sense that in Germany — thanks to the co- wardice of the bourgeoisie — any movement instigated from above is of importance, namely as an electioneering ploy to obtain a conserva- tive majority. As soon as the elections are over, or even earlier if the movement (as now in Pomerania) overshoots the mark set by those in higher places, it will, on orders from above, collapse like a pricked balloon and 'never more be seen'.[2] Movements of this kind cannot be treated with too much contempt and I am glad that the Sozial- demokrat did so. I have, by the way, heard from C. Hirsch who, act- ing on a sudden whim, took a jaunt to Berlin, whence he writes[3] :
'The anti-Semitic movement has been organised entirely — one might almost say very nicely — on orders — from above. I have gone into the poorest of haunts and no one has taken exception to my nose; nowhere, either in omnibuses or trains, have I heard a word spoken against the Jews. The semi-official papers, which hawk round anti-Semitic goods, have very few readers. Germans have a natural aversion to Jews, but I notice that the hatred felt for the government by working men as well as by petty-bourgeois and philistine progressives is far more virulent.'
Of the thousand and one secret police in Berlin, he says that every- one is aware who they are and
'in consequence they know nothing. They are so naive that they always frequent the same pubs and sit at the same tables'.
Your articles on the subject of'intellects' are very good. Again, your treatment of Bismarck's mania for nationalisation as something we should not endorse but which, like everything else that happens, nevertheless turns out nolens volens in our favour, is quite outstanding, and likewise your treatment of 'intellects' as being those of people who, in so far as they are worth anything, come to us of their own ac- cord but, in so far as we have first to recruit them, can only do us harm through what remains of the old leaven. There is much else of equal merit, though anyone could, of course, find occasional fault with the way things are put. The last number, too, was very good as a whole — the right kind of tone, brisk, assured, which the leaders had lost after the assassination attempts and the exceptional law, is back again and makes up for what Frederick William IV used to call 'trouser trumpetings'. You've given Bradlaugh a first- class drubbing.
A few notes as to detail:
1. There's no need to be so complimentary about Vallès. He is a wretched man of letters, or rather, literatus, an absolutely worthless peddlar of stock phrases who, for want of talent, took up with extrem- ists so as to dabble in tendencies — so-called isms — and thus find a market for his indifferent belletristic wares. During the Commune he did nothing but pontificate and, if he exerted any kind of influ- ence, it was for the worse. Don't allow Parisian cliquishness (for which Malon also has a great proclivity) to mislead you about this drôle de fanfaron. What kind of politician he is may be seen from his letter to Grévy when the latter became president, advising him to introduce the socialist republic par ordre du muftï, etc., a letter which retarded the amnesty by many months.
2. The Spaniards are by no means a bunch of anarchists. There's a quite outstanding nucleus in Madrid (the erstwhile nueva federaciôn madrilena) and, in addition, some very good elements, notably in Valencia and in certain of the smaller Catalonian industrial towns, not to mention others dispersed elsewhere. The most energetic and clear-sighted is our friend José Mesa, presently in Paris, a quite excel- lent fellow who also collaborates with Guesde and the rest of them over there, and keeps them in touch. If you want news about Spain, write to him in French (Malon will be able to forward the letter di- rect or through Guesde— I haven't got his address up here). You can mention my name.
On the whole I consider that a young man who is doing so well in and by his post as you, ought by rights to stick to that post. It is, I think, most questionable whether Kegel, who in any case is still in jug, would prove equally adaptable. What his theoretical standpoint is, I do not know, and in any case there is nothing to show that his qualifications are suited to anything more than a local paper, and a humorous one at that. LET WELL ALONE, as the English say; don't try and improve on what is good. I must confess that the thought of any change fills me with mistrust and uneasiness.
Well, now for the Revolutionary Congress. Lafargue has got hold of an Italian who was a delegate but — why I don't know — was thrown out. In addition, Lafargue has met various other members of that gang, likewise anarchists, at the house of a French wine and pro- visions merchant. It appears that:
1. The congress consisted of twenty-odd people, mostly resident in Lon- don with mandates from elsewhere. Also a few Frenchmen and Ita- lians and one Spaniard. They held their sessions in public. But not a soul turned up, neither dog, nor cat, nor reporter. After this vain wait for a public had lasted 3 or 4 days and still continued in vain, they took an heroic resolution and declared the sessions were to be sec- ret
2. The first thing that was noted was the general disappointment caused by the ineffectuality of the anarchist movement as a whole, and the certain knowledge that nowhere at all was there anyone at all behind the vociferous few. Everyone knew this to be true of himself and his own locality and, although everyone had hoodwinked every- one else into believing the most colossal lies about the colossal strides made by the movement in his own district, everyone had none the less believed the lies told by everyone else. So colossal was the collapse of their illusions that, even in the presence of strangers, they were un- able to suppress their astonishment at their own ineffectuality.
3. The congress was retrieved up to a point, first by the meeting to which, of course, they invited reporters, and next by the silly ques- tions asked in Parliament by idiotic Tories and even more idiotic Rad- icals. In view of the present plague of nihilists, it was only to be ex- pected that the press should make capital out of a meeting attended by at most 700 men.
So when the Freiheit speaks of delegate No. 63, etc., this refers to the number of the mandate made out by 1, 2 or 3 men, either in blank or in the name of a man wholly unknown to them and resident in London, or by 10-20 in the name of a delegate travelling to London. The number of delegates actually present was nearer 20 than 30, and of those who actually went there from elsewhere, certainly below 10.
NB. All this to be used with circumspection, as I have it third-hand. E. g. your allusion to it might take the form of a question — whether that was how it happened. The gentlemen always fasten on one in- accurate word. It's the same old story as in the case of all anarchist congresses. You should read in Fictitious Splits in the International what the fellows wrote about their own Congress of the Federation Jurassienne, or the account in the Alliance of Socialist Democracy of the first congress after the split. With those chaps, the first form anarchy assumes is that all want to be officers, and none rankers. Take, for instance, that raging anarchist Adhémar Schwitzguébel (quel nom!) whose objection to acceptance of office from the state as a betrayal of the cause doesn't prevent him from being a lieutenant dans l'armée fédérale suisse!
Kindest regards to yourself and also to Kautsky who will get a let- ter when next it rains.
Yours,
F. Engels