Letter to Paul Lafargue, December 4, 1888

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 4 December 1888


First published, in Russian, in Voprosy istorii KPSS, No. 6, 1965
Translated from the French
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 48
Printed according to the original


ENGELS TO PAUL LAFARGUE

AT LE PERREUX

London, 4 December 1888

My dear Lafargue,

I have just finished editing a very important chapter in Volume III,[1] a chapter Marx left uncompleted—and a mathematical chapter at that, in order to cope with it I have had to set aside all other occupations, notably letter-writing. Hence my silence.

Bernstein has sent your article to Bebel to find out what he thinks of it. As for me, my advice to you would be to withdraw it. The things you say in your historical introduction are common knowledge and we are all of one mind about them. But when you come to the Possibilists,[2] all you do is to say they've sold themselves to the government, and this without the slightest proof or even circumstantial evidence. If you haven't anything else to say about them, it would be better to say nothing at all.[3] Had you given an account of all the dirty tricks they allegedly played on the Municipal Council and on the Bourse du Travail[4] affairs, and had then gone on to provide facts and reasons in support of your assertion of their venality, it might have amounted to something. But the bald assertion that they sold themselves cuts no ice whatsoever.

Don't forget that, in reply, these gentry will say that you have sold yourselves to the Boulangists. There is no denying the fact that your attitude to Boulangism has done you tremendous harm in the eyes of Socialists outside France.[5] You have coquetted and flirted with the Boulangists out of hatred of the Radicals[6] when you might easily have attacked both, thus leaving no room for ambiguity regarding the independence of your position vis-à-vis the two parties. Nothing forced you to choose between these two sets of nincompoops. You could have cocked a snook at one no less than at the other. But instead, you made much of the Boulangists, you even mentioned the possibility of sharing an electoral roll with them at the next elections—with people allied to the Bonapartists and Royalists, who are certainly no better than Mr Brousse's Radical allies! If you have been seduced by the attitude of the Blanquists[7] who, idealists though they be, are also circumspect in their dealings with Boulanger because of the money received from Rochefort, you ought to have known 'those idealists', since we used to have some in London too.

You say it is necessary for the people to personify their aspirations— if that were true, the French would be Bonapartists from birth, in which case we might as well shut up shop in Paris. But even if you did so believe, would it be reason enough to take the said Bonapartists under your wing?

Boulanger, you say, doesn't want war. What the poor fellow wants is neither here nor there! He has to do what the situation demands, whether he likes it or not. Once in power, he'll be a slave to his chauviniste programme, the only programme he's got, aside from his accession to power. Within less than six weeks Bismarck will have enmeshed him in a web of complications, provocations and frontier incidents, etc. Then Boulanger will either have to declare war or else abdicate; have you any doubt what his choice will be? Boulanger spells war, nothing could be more certain. And what war? France allied to Russia, and hence no possibility of revolution; the least movement in Paris, and the Tsar[8] would so arrange things with Bismarck as to stifle revolutionary ardour for good and all; worse still, once war had been embarked upon, the Tsar would be absolute master of France and would impose on you what government he chose. Hence to throw yourselves into Boulanger's arms out of hatred for the Radicals is one and the same thing as throwing yourselves, out of hatred for Bismarck, into the arms of the Tsar. Is it really so difficult to make yourself say that they both of them stink, as Queen Blanka says in Heine[9] ?

I don't know what Liebknecht may have done about the Possibilists. Whatever the case, I feel sure that our party in Germany could hardly bring itself to attend the Possibilist congress[10] and, if it did, this could only be as the result of grave mistakes on your part. But do not forget that the Possibilists have succeeded in posing as the official representatives of French socialism, that they are recognised as such by the English,[11] the Americans and the Belgians, that they fraternised at the London Congress[12] with the Dutch and the Danes because you, having abdicated, were not represented there. If you do nothing in the way of advertising and preparing for your 1889 congress,[13] everybody will attend that of the Broussists, there being no following for those who abdicate. So advertise your congress, make a bit of to-do in the socialist press of all countries, so that others may realise that the little chap's still alive and kicking. And if your Troyes[14] Congress is successful—and succeed it must, for otherwise your party will be done for—beat the big drum, have a central committee that bestirs itself and to which people may refer and, if possible, have a little weekly paper which will give the world proof of your existence. And make a clean break with the Boulangists, otherwise no one will come.

Circumstances permitting, Liebknecht will have his congress—any old congress—provided he himself is there. And if your congress seems to him to offer little chance of success, he'll go to the Possibilist one. I'll do what I can to see that others are informed; Bebel already has been, by Bernstein, who will himself write about the Possibilists in the Sozialdemokrat![15] But he hasn't the power to bind the Party.

Has Liebknecht been in touch with you, and what did you reply? That's what I must know if I am to act in accordance with the facts.

Last Sunday Anseele and Van Beveren came to see me, and who do you think was with them? Adolphe Smith-Headingly! Needless to say, I lost no time in showing him the door. Can you imagine such impudence!

Percy's affairs are going rather badly here; I shall not be able to see how it will all turn out until the end of the year, but 1889 is likely to be pretty revolutinary so far as my finances are concerned. In the meantime I am sending you a cheque for £15 to keep your heads above water.

My love to Laura. Nim has had a bronchial cold which she has at last shaken off, after three weeks.

Yours ever,

F. E.

  1. ↑ Engels was working on Chapter III of Volume III of Capital at the time. For more detail, see Engels' preface to Volume III of Capital (present edition, Vol. 37).
  2. ↑ The Possibilists (Broussists) were a reformist trend in the French socialist movement between the 1880s and the early 20th century. Its leaders - Paul Brousse and Benoit Malon -caused a split in the French Workers' Party (see note 33) in 1882 and formed the Federation of Socialist Workers. Its ideological basis was the theory of municipal socialism. The Possibilists pursued a 'policy of the possible' ('la politique des possibilites'). At the beginning of the 20th century the Possibilists merged with the French Socialist Party.
  3. ↑ A reference to P. Lafargue's article intended for the newspaper Der Sozialdemokrat and containing a critique of the views of the Possibilists (see note 19). On Engels' advice Lafargue abandoned his plan to have it published.
  4. ↑ Bourses du travail, Labour Exchanges - institutions set up in France largely as local government bodies in major cities, consisting of representatives of various trade unions. Originally they were assisted by state bodies in a bid to divert the workers from the class struggle - not infrequently, in the form of financial aid. The labour exchanges provided jobs for the unemployed and led to the founding of new trade unions.
  5. ↑ The French Socialists differed in their attitude to Boulangism (see note 137). Some of them, including P. Lafargue, at first erroneously qualified Boulangism as a 'popular movement' with little regard for the aims of this movement and Boulanger's personality. The Workers' Party majority with Jules Guesde at the head and the greater part of the Blanquists led by M.E. Vaillant adhered to a policy of non-interference with respect to Boulangism by regarding this movement only as a bourgeois party; they said they were loath to intervene in partisan strife among the bourgeois parties. Yet the sectarian stance of non-interference isolated the party from the popular masses and gravely prejudiced its influence in the home country.
  6. ↑ The Radicals were a parliamentary group in France in the 1880s and 1890s that emerged from the party of moderate republicans ('Opportunists', see note 199). The Radicals relied chiefly on the petty bourgeoisie and to some extent on the middle bourgeoisie; they upheld the bourgeois-democratic demands: a unicameral system of parliament, separation of the church from the state, a progressive income tax, limitation of the workday, among other social issues. The Radicals were led by George Clemenceau. This group transformed itself into the Republican Party of Radicals and Radical-Socialists (parti republicain radical et radical-socialiste') in 1901.
  7. ↑ There was a marked trend in the late 1880s toward a rapprochement between part of the Blanquists and the Boulangists. Victor Henri Rochefort, a prominent figure in the Boulangist movement, described Blanquists as 'our friends' in pronouncements made for his newspaper Intransigeant; they were nominated with the Boulangists in common electoral lists. A group led by Ernest Roche and Ernest Granger separated itself from the rest of the Blanquists and gave open and vigorous support to General Boulanger.
  8. ↑ Alexander III
  9. ↑ H. Heine, 'Disputation', Romanzero
  10. ↑ The reference is to the proposed calling of an International Working Mens Congress in Paris in 1889. The Possibilists (see note 19) received powers to organise this congress from the 1886-held Paris International Conference which they had sponsored and which involved representatives of the British trade unions, delegates from German Social Democracy, and the workers' parties of Belgium, Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Australia (about this conference, see note 333).
  11. ↑ The reference is to the rapprochement of the leadership of the Social Democratic Federation (see note 62) and the Possibilists (see note 19). Starting in 1884, the Federation, acting through its organ Justice, conducte broad campaign in support of the Possibilists; it recognised them as the principal organisation of French Socialists and maintained no relations with the French Workers' Party (see note 33). The Social Democratic Federation was the only socialist organisation to support the Possibilist International Congress in Paris in 1889 (see note 478). An allusion to the Parliamentary Committee, an executive body of The Trades Union Congress of Great Britain formed in 1868 and uniting the British trade unions. As of 1871 the Parliamentary Committee was annually elected by Trades Union Congresses as a steering body of the trade unions in between the congresses. It was designed to nominate trade union MPs, support draft bills tabled in the interests of the trade unions, and prepare regular union congresses. Henry Broadhurst was the parliamentary Committee's Secretary from 1875 to 1890. In 1921 the Parliamentary Committee was replaced with the Trades Union Congress General Council.
  12. ↑ The reference is to the London International Congress of Trades Unions held on 6-10 November 1888 at the initiative of the British trade unions. The congress involved trade union representatives of Britain, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Italy as well as French syndicates aligned with the Possibilists. Stipulating that delegates to this congress should be officially elected by respective trade unions, its organisers thereby deprived the German and Austrian. Social Democrats, as well as representatives of the French Workers' Party (the Guesdists), see note 33, of an opportunity to attend. Yet the leaders of the British trade unions failed in their attempts to foist reformist decisions on the congress and isolate it from the Socialists. The congress adopted a number of positive decisions. Thus, the workers were not to confine themselves to forming purely professional organisations - they were to unite into an independent political party as well. One of the resolutions stressed the need to press for legislative regulation of the working day and working conditions. In its most significant decision, the congress resolved to convene an International Working Men's Congress in Paris in 1889; organisation of this congress was entrusted to the Possibilists.
  13. ↑ The National Congress of French Labour Unions (syndicates) held on 23 October - 4 November 1888 (see note 331) adopted a decision on convening an International Working Men's Congress in Paris in 1889.
  14. ↑ Troyes was the proposed venue of a convention of the Workers' Party of French Socialist-Revolutionaries (the Possibilists) (see note 19). The organisers of the congress - local party functionaries - invited representatives of the Guesdists to attend as well. However the Paris Possibilists, fearing that the Guesdists might be in a majority, refused to take part (see also note 329).
  15. ↑ See E. Bernstein, 'Boulanger's Sieg in Paris', Der Sozialdemokrat, 3 February 1889