Letter to Wilhelm Liebknecht, March 9, 1890

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 9 March 1890


First published in: Marx and Engels, Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XXVIII, Moscow, 1940
Printed according to the original
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 48


ENGELS TO WILHELM LIEBKNECHT

IN DRESDEN

London, 9 March 1890

Dear Liebknecht,

My congratulations on the 42,000 votes that have made you the premier élu de l'Allemagne.[1] [2] When, in future, you are interrupted by a Kar-, Hell- or any other Junkerdorf[3] , your retort can be: 'It would take a dozen of the likes of you to muster as many constituents as I've got. So draw in your horns—if you can!'[4]

After the prolonged intoxication of victory, we over here are sobering down by degrees, but without any unpleasant after-effects. I had hoped for 1,200,000 votes and everyone said I was unduly sanguine; now we see that my figure was too modest.[5] Our lads have behaved quite magnificently, but it's no more than a beginning and they've got a hard fight ahead of them. Our successes in Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg and Pomerania[6] mean that we shall now be making tremendous headway amongst the agricultural labourers of the East. Now that the towns are ours and word of our victories has penetrated to the remotest baronial estates, we shall be able to kindle, in rural areas, a blaze of quite a different order from the flash in the pan of 12 years ago. In three years the agricultural labourers will be ours and with them the crack regiments of the Prussian army. Nor can this be prevented save by one means, the ruthless application of which is now the only point upon which little Willie[7] and Bismarck are still agreed, namely a hail of shot to the inevitable accompaniment of an acute reign of terror. To this end, they will seize upon any pretext and, once Puttkamer's 'cannons'[8] have sprayed the streets of a few big towns with shrapnel, there will be a state of siege throughout Germany, the philistine will return to his right mind again and vote blindly as directed, and we shall be crippled for years to come.

This is something we must prevent. We must not, in our triumphal progress, allow ourselves to be diverted from our purpose, we must not spoil our own game or prevent our enemies from doing our work for us. So I agree with you to the extent of saying that, for the present, we should conduct ourselves as peacefully and constitutionally as possible and avoid every pretext for a clash. True, your philippics against the use of force in any form and under any circumstances seem to me inopportune, firstly because none of your opponents would believe you, they are not as stupid as all that, and secondly because your theory would make anarchists even of Marx and myself, since we were never inclined, like good Quakers, to turn the other cheek. This time you have definitely overshot the mark somewhat.

Nieuwenhuis is, to my mind, more or less innocent of the article to which you are replying;[9] according to what we have heard over here, Croll is the crib-biter who refuses to leave you in peace—he's said to be a trouble-maker par excellence. These people from little countries are our bane in the international field—they are excessively demanding, expect always to be handled with kid gloves while themselves being as rude as they please, and constantly feel themselves slighted because they cannot always play first fiddle; all the trouble and strife at the last congress, both before and during it, was caused by them alone—first the Swiss with their deluded idea that they could get the Possibilists to defect, then the Brussels people, and after them the Dutch. Well, no doubt our German victory will put them more or less on the right track and enable us to be magnanimous.

Will you please let me know in advance when you intend to cross the Channel. We've only got one spare room, and in the spring it is often occupied—as at Easter, for instance, by Schorlemmer, while the Lafargues or Louise Kautsky might also be coming; so a bit of management may be necessary to keep it free for you.

Since you specifically give a Dresden address, I can only take it as an indication that I should write to you there.

The Nineteenth Century is, after The Contemporary Review, the most highly thought-of journal in this country—but since I am always confusing the two, I shall not be able to provide details until later today when the Avelings have arrived. Meanwhile, I would simply say: 1. Get them to pay you well, 2. Under English law the article belongs to the journal and the editor can make what alterations he likes unless you have a prior agreement to the contrary. In such a case I stipulate, 1. that the copyright remains vested in me, 2. that no alterations are made without my express consent.

Evening. The Nineteenth Century belongs to Mr Knowles: Gladstone sometimes writes for it and for the Contemporary, which belongs to Percy Bunting, whom you were taken to see by la Schack. Otherwise I have nothing to add to the above. Knowles is every inch a businessman, so beware.

Regards from Nim, the Avelings, the Edes, Dr Zadek and Mrs Romm-Zadek, likewise Pumps and Percy, all of whom are here.

Your

F. E.

  1. ↑ the first among the elected in Germany
  2. ↑ At the election of 20 February 1890, W. Liebknecht polled 42, 274 votes in the 6th constituency, while the 'Free Thinkers' (see note 613) got 14,195 votes as representatives of the cartel (see note 265) 10,836.
  3. ↑ A play on words in the original.
  4. ↑ A literal rendering of this German expression would be: 'Withdraw into your foreskin, if you've got one.'
  5. ↑ At the 20 February election the Social Democratic Party received 664,170 votes more than in 1887.
  6. ↑ See this volume, p.456
  7. ↑ William II
  8. ↑ The reference is to R. Puttkamer's election speech at Stolpe on 31 January 1890, against a repeal of the Anti-Socialist law (see note 52). In it he expressed the hope that the army and the Civil Service, loyal to the government, would be guarantors of order (Ordnung) in Germany. However Puttkamer did not rule out the government having to impose a major state of siege (instead of a 'minor' one). The minor state of 'siege' was envisaged by Clause 28 of the Anti-Socialist Law; the governments of German states, with the consent of the Federal Council, could impose a stage of siege for one year in certain districts and localities. In this case no meeting or assembly could take place without permission of the police; it was forbidden to circulate printed matter in public places; politically unreliable persons were to be deported from a given locality; the right to have or hold arms, their import and sale were prohibited or restricted.
  9. ↑ This refers to an article in the Dutch socialist newspaper Recht voor Allen.