Letter to Eduard Bernstein, May 15, 1885

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 15 May 1885


First published, in Russian, in Marx-Engels Archives, Book I, Moscow, 1924
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 47


ENGELS TO EDUARD BERNSTEIN

IN ZURICH

London, 15 May 1885

Dear Ede,

I think it's about time to drop you a line or two again, otherwise you will grow far too melancholy. You and Kautsky seem to evoke from one another so many doleful laments that a complete concert in the minor key could be produced therefrom; it's like the trombone in Wagner that always sounds forth whenever something dire is going to happen. Each time you get bad news, the pair of you always forget the old adage about a dog's back being worse than its bite.

The general and inescapable impression left by the whole shindy between 'parliamentary group and editors' is that the parliamentary group have made fools of themselves. And should the parliamentary

group insist on doing it again, they ought not to be prevented. Had you immediately published the first written communication,[1] as they demanded, they would have made complete and utter fools of themselves, and a 'storm of indignation' would have broken out on all sides. Not, of course, that this could very well have been asked of you at the start, but there can be no doubt at all that it is not in our inter- ests to prevent the parliamentary group from showing themselves in their true colours. As things are, 'parliamentary group and editors' confront each other as equals — in the eyes of the public—, this being the result of the last, lengthy middle-of-the-road statement,[2] and what happens next, we shall have to see.

I had Singer here on Sunday,[3] and cut short all his speechifying. The parliamentary group's first statement, he said, was directed not so much against the articles in the paper,[4] as against the (alleged) attempt to try and arouse a storm of indignation against the parlia- mentary group. That, I said, was something the public couldn't have known; if you make a public statement, it can only refer to publicly available facts. But if you hit out at the paper on account of things that have never appeared in it, the public may justifiably ask: 'What are these gentlemen after, if not the suppression of free speech?' This he had to admit. Next I said that, to judge by what was to me a very familiar style, most of the objectionable articles had been by Lieb- knecht.— Singer: 'Quite right, and we gave Liebknecht a proper dressing-down for it in the parliamentary group.' I: 'But to censure the paper in public for printing things that actually emanated from the parliamentary group simply won't do. You ought to have settled the matter amongst yourselves. Instead, you publicly attack the edi- tors for matters that are solely the private concern of the parliamen- tary group. To whom, then, are the editors to look?' Here again he could raise no objection. 'In short, you have, by your ill-considered action, made fools of yourselves, and if anyone has come off best in the eyes of the public, it is the editors.' This, too, he had to concede indirectly. Since I stuck to the main points and disregarded all his personal tittle-tattle, of which he had ample store, we concluded our business in ten minutes.

That's not the end of the matter, of course. But we now know what the gentlemen's weak side is. If I were editor of the Sozialdemokrat, I should, from the editorial point of view, let the parliamentary group stew in its own juice, i. e. in the Reichstag, entrust any criticism thereof to the members of the party, on the strength of the oft-cited 'free expression of opinion', and tell Liebknecht once and for all that he must himself be answerable to the parliamentary group for his ar- ticles, thus putting an end to his double-dealing, in this respect at any rate. Then, provided the paper continues to be edited along the lines already laid down, that is enough for us. It is far more important for us to maintain our theoretical standpoint in the face of the rubbish that is printed in Germany than to criticise the parliamentary group's mode of action. For after all, those who have been elected are them- selves doing everything in their power to enlighten the electorate as to the character of the elected. And for that matter, day to day events provide opportunity enough to make clear what our standpoint is, even if we leave it to the parliamentary group and party members to take care of the parliamentary group. It is, however, that very stand- point that vexes them most of all, and it is something they dare not publicly attack.

The Reichstag will soon be going home. In the meantime the gen- tlemen— although almost all of them are secret protectionists — will have seen what havoc is wrought by a policy of protective tariffs.[5]

That is but the first of many disappointments that lie in store for them. Not that it will change their philistine character, but it will probably shake their confidence and cause them to fall out over phi- listine questions that necessitate their declaring themselves for or against. Only give such types a little rope, and they'll hang them- selves.

In short, our policy is, I believe, to temporise. The Anti-Socialist Law is working in their favour and if, while it remains in force, they can only find an opportunity to show themselves in their true colours, that is really all we need for the present. In the meantime we must defend every position to the utmost, particularly in the press, and.this will not always call for active resistance. To outflank an enemy is also a defensive manoeuvre but one that has offensive con- notations. At the moment we have much against us. Bebel is ill and has, so it seems, lost heart. Nor shall I be able to help as much as I would like until I have finished with Marx's manuscripts. So you and Kautsky must bear the brunt of the battle. But don't forget the old rule — never to allow the actualities of the movement and of the struggle to make you forget the movement's future. And that belongs

to us. The third volume of Capital will do in all these chaps at one blow.

Your

F. E.

  1. ↑ On the conflict between the parliamentary group and the editorial board, see Note 374. The original text of the parliamentary group's decision of 20 March 1885 carried by Der Sozialdemokrat contained a clause saying that the parliamentary group bore 'moral responsibility' for the newspaper's contents. This met with objections on the part of members of the editorial board, including Eduard Bernstein. The parliamentary group had sent Wilhelm Liebknecht to Zurich, the place of publica tion, to settle the conflict. The text published by Der Sozialdemokrat on 2 April 1885 contained, among other things, the following remark: 'the party organ must under no circumstances become opposed to the parliamentary group, which bears the moral responsibility for the contents of the same', and continued, 'It is not the paper which has to determine the stance of the parliamentary group, but the par liamentary group which has to monitor the stance of the paper.'
  2. ↑ The reference is to the statement by the Social-Democratic group in the Reichstag and the editors of the paper carried by Der Sozialdemokrat, No. 17, 23 April 1885, in which it was stated that any attempt to limit criticism in the party would be a violation of party principles and would shake it to the foundations. As for the re lations between the parliamentary group and the editorial board, the statement represented a compromise. It pointed out, on the one hand, that Der Sozialdemokrat was the organ of the party as a whole but that, on the other hand, the parlia mentary group was the party's representative body and had a right to monitor the work of the editorial board. On the parliamentary group's first statement, see Note 374.
  3. ↑ 10 May
  4. ↑ Der Sozialdemokrat, Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 of 8, 15 and 29 January and 12 February 1885 published articles and editorial comments criticising the attitude taken by the ma jority of the parliamentary group to the bill on subsidies to steamship companies (see Note 342). The first article was signed 'W. L.', the second was without a signa ture, the third carried the initials J. A.' and the fourth, 'H.R.'.
  5. ↑ The protective tariffs system was introduced by Bismarck in 1879 in the interest of the landowners and large industrialists and remained in force throughout the 1880s (in 1885 and 1887 it was supplemented by further rises in the duties payable on import ed agricultural produce). To a certain extent it promoted the growth of German industry, but brought a major deterioration in the situation of the masses. This led to major discontent, not only among the proletariat, but also the middle and petty bourgeoisie.