Letter to Paul Lafargue, July 5, 1889

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 5 July 1889


First published in English in Frederick Engels, Paul and Laura Lafargue. Correspondence. 1887-1890, Vol. 2, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1960. First published in the original language in: Marx and Engels, Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XXVIII, Moscow, 1940
Published in English in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 48


ENGELS TO PAUL LAFARGUE

AT LE PERREUX

London, 5 July 1889

My dear Lafargue,

I quite appreciate that a congress consisting of delegates from an asso- ciation should hold private meetings for the discussion of matters that concern no one but its members and, indeed, this would as a rule be obligatory. But that a congress of working-class and Socialist delegates, convened in order to discuss general questions such as the 8 hours' day, legislation on female and child labour, the abolition of standing armies, etc.,—that such a congress should close its doors to the public and delib- erate in camera, strikes me as unjustifiable. The presence or otherwise of the Parisian public is of little moment, although the interest your Party must take in the said congress should certainly suffice to ensure it some sort of audience. But even if the usual nincompoops were to be conspic- uous by their absence, the public meetings would, I opine, be none the worse. What we need is some reaction from the press, and for that to happen, publicity is essential. The press can only write about those things to which it is admitted. And the evening meetings devoted to oratory, in which French is obligatory as the only language the public understands, will hold out few charms for delegates who cannot speak it. After a lengthy afternoon or morning session they will want to look round Paris rather than listen to incomprehensible speeches. Not that this should prevent you from holding one or two evening meetings in a large hall, but to close the doors for fear of it's being said that the hall was half empty is to attach, I should say, an exaggerated importance to the Parisian public. The congress is being held for the benefit of the world at large, a fact which the absence or otherwise of a handful of Parisians does nothing to alter. You, who are for ever saying that the Possibilists carry no weight, and that it is you who represent the French proletariat, now tremble lest they may have a bigger audience than yourselves!

For that matter, Bebel has written[1] saying that, for them, there can be no question of closed meetings and that, so far as the Germans are concerned, publicity is the only guarantee against renewed accusations of being a secret society. In the face of that argument, lesser considera- tions relating to the Parisian public and its possible abstention will prob- ably have to go by the board.

He further says that 60 German delegates will probably be coming. In Germany, enthusiasm seems to be boundless.

The Social Democratic Federation is well and truly in the shit. And who do you think has come to the rescue? Poor H. Jung, who this week declares in a letter[2] that our congress is of no consequence whatsoever, that it's a HAPPY FAMILY of enemies, that Longuet is not a Socialist, that Jaclard is not a Socialist, that Liebknecht voted for Bismarck's colonial policy (which is a lie), etc. Poor fellows, they are at their wits' end.

You doubtless know that Ferdinand D. Nieuwenhuis is going to propose a merger 'in view of the fact that the agenda is the same for both congresses'. Since the agenda is not the same, I cannot see that anyone can vote for this motion. At all events I have written to Bebel,[3] point- ing out that things are no longer at the stage they had reached at the Hague[4] ; that since that time you have been authorised by them to convene your congress; that this was supported by the whole of Socialist Europe and that, in consequence, you were entitled to lay down new conditions for a possible merger; that the mania for unity may force the unionists to adopt a course ultimately leading to union with their enemies and separation from their friends and allies; and, finally, that there will be a host of minor difficulties. Indeed, in my opinion, there will not be the slightest chance of a useful merger unless detailed condi- tions are hammered out between committees from both congresses, and are agreed by the latter. Otherwise the union will not last for more than a couple of hours. And if a solution is to be reached, time will be needed, which means that the merger, if it happens at all, could not be effected until things are nearly over.

Your article went off to Russia yesterday, REGISTERED. What you tell me about the wine-growers of Champagne[5] is extremely interesting—the ruination of the peasant is now gathering speed, thanks to advanced capitalism!

It is most fortunate that Liebknecht should be staying with Vaillant; I have strong suspicions that he will make another attempt to join forces with the 'good elements' among the Possibilists, going 'over Brousse's head', as in March and April.

A kiss to Laura from myself and Nim.

Yours ever,

F. Engels

  1. ↑ Bebel to Engels, 2 July 1889
  2. ↑ H. Jung, 'To the Editor of Justice', Justice, Vol. VI, No. 286, 6 July 1889
  3. ↑ The whereabouts of the letter is not known.
  4. ↑ The International Socialist Conference was held in the Hague on 28 February 1889. It was attended by representatives of the socialist movement of Germany, France, Belgium, Holland and Switzerland. The conference was convened at the suggestion of the Social Democratic faction in the German Reichstag with the aim of framing the conditions for the calling of an International Socialist Working Men's Congress in Paris. The Possibilists refused to attend the conference despite the invitation and did not recognise its decisions. The conference defined the powers of the forthcoming congress, its date and agenda. The International Working Men's Congress took place on 14 July 1889.
  5. ↑ Writing to F. Engels on 2 July 1889, P. Lafargue told him he met at Epernay, in the champagne-producing district, a large number of revolutionary socialist winegrowers, small growers completely ruined by the big champagne manufactures.