Letter to Laura Lafargue, August 17, 1891

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 17 August 1891


First published, in the language of the original (English), in: F. Engels, P. et I.. Lafargue, Correspondance, t. III, Paris, 1959
Reproduced from the original
Published in English in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 49


ENGELS TO LAURA LAFARGUE

AT LE PERREUX

Ryde, 17 August 1891
The Firs, Brading Road

My dear Laura,

We are still here, Schorlemmer and I, awaiting fine weather which is very slow to come; now and then we have had a fine day and could venture on an excursion but on the whole we had our enterprising spirits damped by the glorious uncertainty which is common to the law and the climate of England; not a few times, too, damped and even wetted by but too certain rain. Anyhow we may thank our stars that our plan[s] of circumnavigating this island (not Wight, which we have twice sailed round but Great Britain) were nipped in the bud, for we should have caught it and well too. So we are here admiring the British Fleet which is moored opposite us and awaiting the French which is to come up the day after tomorrow.

So poor Paul has entered upon his term of Ste Pélagie 287 — I hope he'll keep his spirits up! It's a long bout of enforced rest, but then France c'est l'imprévu[1] and nobody knows what will turn up within a twelvemonth. I am afraid you will find Le Perreux about as solitary as he will Ste Pélagie, well we must have you over here in London off and on, which may be done I hope without very great difficulties, for surely you will not be bound by your family of pigeons, hews, etc., etc. So I hope you will arrange to come by and bye after you have made Paul as comfortable as circumstances will permit.

Our Russian friend[2] wrote to me about 3 weeks ago: 'We are on the eve of a famine', and indeed that prophecy has been but too soon fulfilled. While the French Chauvins and Russian pan-Slavists fraternise and hurrah at each other,[3] this fact nullifies all their demonstrations. With a famine at home, the Czar cannot fight. The utmost he will do is to use the present mood of the French bourgeois for his own ends, by blustering and threatening, but he will not strike a blow, and if the French bourgeois should go too far, he will leave them to shift for themselves. What the Russian government aims at, at present, is the closing of the Dardanelles in time of war to all navies. That he will get the French to subscribe to, and then, when Gladstone comes in here, as is hoped, at next general election, the grand old Russophile is to be coaxed into agreeing to it too. With the two great naval powers bound hand and foot by such an agreement, the Czar is master of Constantinople which he can surprise any day, and the Sultan is but the Czar's care-taker on the Bosporus. That is the plan, to which the bourgeois republic at Paris is to act the part of cat's-paw, and when it has done its duty as such, it may go to the devil for aught the Czar cares. That is the reason why the Czar submitted to listen to the Marseillaise and to humour the representatives of a Republic.

Anyhow, peace is assured — unless some people turn crazy — for this and the greater part of next year. That is the principal effect of the famine in Russia.

But there are others. There will be internal commotions in Russia, and they may lead to a change; it is even likely they will cause some change, bring about some movement in that pool of stagnation; but it may be, that this is not only le commencement de la fin mais la fin elle-même.[4]

In Germany the failure of the crop seems certain too, and there the present and still rising famine prices will bring about the breakdown of the Bismarckian fiscal policy and the protective duties. There, too, the old system will be shaken to its very foundations and nobody can tell how far that may go. Anyhow it will again swell our ranks amazingly, and help us to conquer the country districts where we are gaining ground wonderfully. There have been two by-elections in East Prussia on the borders of Russia, in thorough country districts, where two years ago we had about 400-500 votes together, this year we had about 3,000 285! And if we get the rural districts of the six eastern provinces of Prussia (where large landed property and large farming predominate) the German army is ours.

According to The Standard of to-day,[5] neither Hyndman nor Brousse had turned up, and Allemane was to take charge of the Possibilists. So as far as that class of opposition is concerned, it looks like a walk-over for our people. That question once disposed of, there will remain but little real work for the Congress; unless the various velleities of a restoration of the 'International' venture to come out.[6] I hope they will not, for that would cause new splits and throw us back, here in England at least, for years to come. The thing is an absurdity in every respect, especially so long as neither in France nor in England there is one strong and united party. If that were the case, and both united heart and soul with the Germans, then the end would be obtained without any formal union, the moral effect of the three great western nations acting together would suffice. But so long as that cannot be, all attempts at restoring an International would bring one of the petty nations, probably the Belgians, into an undeserved prominency and end in quarrels. The fact is, the movement is too great, too vast to be confined by such hampering bonds. Still, there is a hankering after this restoration and Bonnier was full of it last time I saw him. Certainly he looked rather perplexed when I told him my objections and had not a word to say — but will that stop him and his friends in Brussels?

On Thursday[7] I expect to be back in London; Adler will come from Brussels for a few days, perhaps also Bebel. As soon as I am informed about the Brussels proceedings I shall send you a letter for Paul, in the meantime kind regards to both of you from Schorlemmer, the Pumpses and

Yours ever,

F. Engels

Had letter from Tussy from Brussels, but written before Sunday's meeting.[8] Shall not know anything of what happened by the time this has to be posted. 18th August, 11 in the morning.

  1. ↑ is unpredictable
  2. ↑ N. F. Danielson, see this volume, p. 230.
  3. ↑ A French naval squadron visiting Kronstadt in July and early August 1891 was accorded an elaborately solemn welcome — a demonstration of a rapprochement between Tsarist Russia and France. At the same time, diplomatic negotiations were in progress which culminated in the signing, in August 1892, of a treaty under which France and Russia undertook to consult each other on international matters and co-operate in the event of a threat of an attack on either of them. This agreement was a landmark on the way to the final formalisation, in 1893, of the Franco-Russian alliance, set up in opposition to the Triple Alliance (see Note 303).
  4. ↑ the beginning of the end, but the end itself
  5. ↑ The Standard of 17 August 1891 carried a Reuters report, 'Socialist Congress in Brussels', on the Brussels International Socialist Workers' Congress (see Note 135).
  6. ↑ See this volume, p. 221.
  7. ↑ 20 August
  8. ↑ The International Socialist Workers' Congress met in Brussels, 16-22 August 1891. The 337 delegates represented the socialist parties and organisations and numerous trades unions in many European countries and the USA. By a majority vote the congress debarred the anarchists from taking part in its deliberations. Representatives of British trades unions attended. The American delegates included trades unionists, as well as socialists.
    The congress discussed labour legislation, strike action and boycott, militarism and the celebration of May Day.
    The resolution on the first question called on workers the world over to join forces for the fight against capitalist rule and, where workers possessed political rights, to use these to free themselves from wage slavery. The resolution on strikes and boycott recommended the workers to make use of these methods of struggle and stressed that trades unions were absolutely essential to the workers.
    The attitude of the working class to militarism was in the centre of the congress deliberations. Wilhelm Liebknecht's and Edouard Vaillant's reports on this issue and the draft resolution tabled by Liebknecht pointed out that militarism was an inevitable product of the capitalist system, that socialist society alone could put an end to it and bring about international peace and that the socialists were the true party of peace.
    The leader of the Dutch Social-Democrats, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, who took a semi-anarchist stand, tabled an alternative resolution, under which socialists in all countries should, in the event of war, call on their respective people to proclaim a general strike. The vast majority of the delegates voted for the resolution tabled by Liebknecht.
    Referring to the resolutions of the Brussels Congress, Engels pointed out that 'in matters of principle as of tactics the Marxists have been victorious all along the line' (Engels to F.A. Sorge, 2 September 1891).