| Author(s) | Friedrich Engels |
|---|---|
| Written | 10 August 1890 |
ENGELS TO WILHELM LIEBKNECHT
IN LEIPZIG
London, 10 August 1890
Dear Liebknecht,
I am still held up here because my house is in the process of changing owners. So far as I can see, we shall not be leaving until Thursday, when we shall probably go to Folkestone. I shall leave our address at the OFFICE[1] here in Kentish Town and shall also send it to you in Leipzig. I hope that, as soon as you arrive, you will come and join us at the seaside. As you write and say that you cannot come before the 15th of this month, I would venture to suppose that you won't be able to get away immediately after the 15th either—to judge by recent delays, at any rate. So if you were to come on about 1 September or soon after, you would still be able to spend some time with us, and then return to London in our company (about 11 September), where you would be assured of a place to stay with us.
During our absence the house is being decorated; this year the carpets have got to be taken up, and there is also the papering and whitewashing to be done. Moreover, owing to some unfortunate experiences in puncto[2] of expenditure, I shall be obliged while we're away to put the housemaid on BOARD WAGES, i. e. give her so much a week in return for which she has to keep herself—an arrangement that is awkward, in that it precludes, not only hospitality, but also to some extent the very possibility of my spending a night in the house during that particular period. So if you were to arrive earlier, it would probably mean your accepting Motteler's invitation. However, I dare say you will be able to fall in with the above suggestions.
At all events I hope to see you before the congress. Your draft has its weaker sides, the weakest, and one which to my mind provides quite unnecessary occasion for perpetual recrimination, being the proposal that the Executive should itself—albeit with the consent of the parliamentary group—determine its own rates of pay. I have today received the Sächsische Arbeiter-Zeitung in which the literary gents criticise the draft. Much of their criticism is utterly puerile, but they have instinctively smelt out isolated weaknesses. For instance, that every constituency may send up to 3 representatives. Any old Bahlmann or Höchberg, provided he is prepared to stake his money on it, could thus send 3 representatives from a constituency in which we had polled barely a thousand votes. Needless to say, money as regulator of the number of delegates sent will, generally speaking, play only an indirect role. However, I think it unwise that the proportion of delegates to the number of party comrades they represent should be made to depend on that alone.
Again, according to § 2—to go by the wording—any three nonentities may combine to expel you from the party until such time as you are rehabilitated by the party Executive. The party conference, on the other hand, may not expel anyone but only act as a court of appeal.
In any active party having parliamentary representatives, the parliamentary group is a power of great importance. It has that power, whether or not it is expressly recognised in the rules. It may therefore be asked whether it is wise that the rules should accord it the additional status whereby it has absolute authority over the Executive, as is done in §§ 15-18. Supervision of the Executive, ALL RIGHT, but maybe it would be preferable for an indictment to come up before an independent committee which would be responsible for the verdict.
During the past 3 years your party has seen a massive increase of one million. The existence of the Anti-Socialist Law has meant that these new recruits have not had sufficient opportunity for reading or for agitation to place them on a par with the older party members. Many of them have only the good will and good intentions with which the road to hell is notoriously paved. It would be a miracle if they were not burning with zeal like all neophytes. Thus they constitute material that positively invites appropriation and exploitation by the thrustful literati and academics who oppose you. As, indeed, has transpired in, for instance, Magdeburg. Herein lies a danger which should not be underestimated. Obviously at this congress, you will easily be able to cope with it. But you must take care that no seeds of future difficulties are sown. Do not make martyrs unnecessarily, show
SoiialticmBlmitifdir 6ibli>tl>ct
Das
fNctte «KtoriRfte bntfA« «««««be.
Mit (tat« mm Inatrt »it Itielrit fi|t!i.
"d^-t&Hti
German Cooperative P a b l i s h i n g Co.
114 Kentish Town Ro»d XW 1890.[3]
that there is freedom of criticism, and if you have to throw anyone out, do so in cases where the facts—OVERT ACTS of turpitude and betrayal—are quite blatant and completely demonstrable. That is what I think. More when we meet.
Your
F. E.
Many regards to your wife and to Theodor.[4]