Letter to Eduard Bernstein, November 30, 1881

ENGELS TO EDUARD BERNSTEIN

IN ZURICH

London, 30 November 1881

Dear Mr Bernstein,

If any one outside event has contributed to putting Marx more or less to rights again, then it is the elections. Never has a proletariat conducted itself so magnificently. In England, after the great defeat of 1848, there was a relapse into apathy and, in the end, resignation to bourgeois exploitation, with the proviso that the TRADES UNIONS fought individual battles for higher wages. In France the proletariat disappeared from the stage after the 2nd December. In Germany, after 3 years of unprecedented persecution and unrelenting pressure, during which any form of public organisation and even communication was a sheer impossibility, our lads have returned, not only in all their former strength, but actually stronger than before. And stronger in one crucial respect, in that the movement's centre of gravity has shifted from the semi-rural districts of Saxony to the large industrial towns.

The bulk of our people in Saxony consist of hand-loom weavers, who are doomed to obsolescence by the power-loom and are only just enabled to keep going by starvation wages and secondary occupations (gardening, toy carving, etc.). These people find themselves in an economically reactionary situation and represent an obsolescent stage of production. So they are not born representatives of revolutionary socialism — not, at any rate, to the same degree as are the workers in large-scale industry. Hence they are not reactionary by nature (as, for instance, the remaining hand-loom weavers eventually became over here — the hard core of the 'CONSERVATIVE WORKING MEN') but cannot be relied upon in the long run. This is also very largely due to their appallingly miserable condition, which means that they have far less power of resistance than townsmen, and also to their dispersion, which makes them easier to enslave politically than the inhabitants of large towns. The facts reported in the Sozialdemokrat^[1] fill one with admiration for the heroism with which so many of those poor devils continued to stand firm.

But they are not the right kind of nucleus for a great national movement. In certain circumstances — as in 1865-70 — their poverty renders them more readily receptive to socialist views than the inhabitants of large towns. But this same poverty also makes them unreliable. A drowning man clutches at any straw, nor can he wait for a boat to push off from the bank and come to his rescue. The boat is socialist revolution, the straw, protective tariffs and state socialism. It is significant that there, in our old constituencies, it was almost only conservatives who stood any chance against us. And if, on a previous occasion, Kayser could talk such rubbish about protective tariffs without anyone's venturing any real objection, whose was the blame — as Bebel himself remarked in a letter to me —if not the constituents', and Kayser's in particular?

Now everything's different. Berlin, Hamburg, Breslau, Leipzig, Dresden, Mainz, Offenbach, Barmen, Elberfeld, Solingen, Nuremberg, Frankfurt am Main, Hanau, as well as Chemnitz and the Erzgebirge districts — that's backing of quite a different order. A class that is revolutionary by reason of its economic situation has come to be the nucleus of the movement. Aside from that, the movement is evenly distributed over the entire industrial area of Germany and, from being restricted to a few local centres, has only now come to be a national movement. And that is what frightens the bourgeois most of all.

As regards those who have been elected, we shall have to hope for the best, although I find it very difficult to do so where some of them are concerned. But it would be a disaster if, this time, Bebel were not to be returned. For there will be many new elements—each armed, no doubt, with his own little schemes — whom Bebel alone, with his unerring tact, would be able to keep in order and prevent from making asses of themselves.

As regards the French, it would now be best simply to let Messrs Malon and Brousse have their head, and show what they can do. But it's unlikely to come to that. One of these days the Egalité will appear; Brousse will, as before, be guardedly libellous, launching attacks in the Prolétaire without naming names, while the others, falling headlong into the snare, will, in their attacks, name names from the outset, whereupon they will be hailed as disturbers of the peace, sectarians, spreaders of dissension and budding dictators. Nothing can be done to stop this. The fellows are completely incapable of waiting until their opponents have got into a mess of their own contriving, but must perforce take issue with them and thus give them a longer lease of life. Left to their own devices Malon and, more especially, Brousse would scupper themselves (and probably each other) within 6 months. But as things are, it may take longer.

Like almost all such congresses, the Congress of Rheims^[2] served to impress the outside world but, seen in the cold light of day, was a swindle. Of the 'federations' represented there, only the Centre, Nord and Est really exist; the others exist only on paper. The Algerian federation had elected the bourgeois Henry Maret {radical deputy) as its delegate!!, which just shows what kind of allies Malon has got. Guesde had wanted only properly organised federations to be represented on the Comité national—but his proposal was turned down. This was misrepresented, i. e. suppressed, in the official account in the Prolétaire. Thus, half the delegates to the congress and on the Comité national represent nothing at all, or at best only castles in Spain. The haste to declare the Prolétaire, already completely taken over by Malon and Brousse, an official gazette was due solely to the desire to steal a march on the forthcoming Égalité. As usual, none of the resolutions on organisation were determined by expediency but by the opportunist considerations of the parties concerned.

Here is something that will give you an idea of Malon's Marxophobia: last spring he asked Lafargue, when the latter was in Paris, to obtain from Marx a foreword to the new edition of Malon's Histoire du Socialisme; needless to say, Lafargue laughed in his face and told him he must have a very poor idea of Marx if he thought him capable of lending himself to such humbug.

G. Howell, luckily not returned as 'labour candidate' for Stafford, is undoubtedly the biggest blackguard of all the politicanti^[3] ex-working men here. He was until recently secretary of the TRADES UNIONS PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE (needless to say, a salaried post) and took occasion to cook the books, this being only hushed up with some difficulty; however, he was given the sack.

Within the next few days I shall write to K. K. of Käsburg^[4] about the Polish affair. In the meantime, give him my best regards.

Marx is still very run down, isn't allowed to leave his room or engage in any serious occupation, but he is visibly gaining weight. His wife is growing ever weaker.

With best regards,

Yours,

F.E.