| Author(s) | Friedrich Engels |
|---|---|
| Written | 3 December 1891 |
ENGELS TO KARL KAUTSKY
IN STUTTGART
London, 3 December 1891
Dear Kautsky,
Your letter of 30 October has long been awaiting an answer; the blame for this must be placed upon Volume III[1] which I am once again sweating away at. I have just got to the most difficult part, i. e. the last chapters (six to eight or thereabouts) on money capital, banks, credit, etc., and, once having started, I shall have to keep at it without a break and work through the relevant literature again, in short make myself completely au fait, if only so that I may — as is probable — eventually leave most of it as it stands, yet at the same time feel quite sure that I have committed no blunders either in the positive or the negative sense.
Very many thanks for the reports on Erfurt[2] ; they were of value to me in many respects, the discussions of the programme committee being of particular interest. You describe the Executive's draft as his, Liebknecht's. Bebel sent me all the material relative to the genesis of this draft[3] from which it is evident that at each stage a fair portion of Liebknecht's initial work had been dropped and replaced with Bebel's propositions until in the end little or nothing remained. What did remain, however, was a lack of coherence, of rigour in the coordination of individual propositions, both being attributable to the consideration paid to Liebknecht's work. That was what gave your draft[4] the advantage, as everyone was bound to acknowledge at first glance, and it was that, too, along with Bebel's public admission of the fact, which immediately convinced the others.
The recent investigations, which have rendered obsolete Marx's chapter on the historical trend of capitalist accumulation,[5] are in any case the work of Geiser who is of course regarded in Breslau[6] as a genuine scientific authority. However it is also possible that in his embarrassment Liebknecht said (for he was obviously unaware that these propositions had been taken from Capital) the first 'bit of nonsense', as he would put it, that came into his head.
At any rate the theoretical part of the programme is now perfectly presentable; the main thing is that it should contain nothing that is theoretically controversial and in the main this aim has been achieved. The practical demands contain all kinds of snags; many of them seem philistine — if applied to conditions today — but now that we occupy a position of power we can reply quite rightly that they will certainly not be implemented until we come to the helm and that they will then assume quite a different character. As, for instance, free legal advice. A six hours' working day up till the age of 18 obviously ought to have gone in — as also the banning of night work for women and of any sort of work at the very least one month before and 6 weeks after a confinement.
I'm sorry for Liebknecht. For he had to sing the praises of the new programme although it was perfectly plain to everyone that he had had no part in it whatever. But he took on the job of his own accord, so what can one do about it?
What you say about Tölcke's speech is new to me and most interesting.[7] Ede's work[8] goaded the Old Lassalleans into a state of great activity at a time when Marx's letter[9] had already roused them from the complacency induced by the obligatory deification of Lassalle. Even Jacob Audorf, the discoverer of the path of boldness along which we were led by Baron Izzy[10] (as Marx used to call the chap), has been letting forth indignant battle cries amidst the Sunday chit-chat of the Hamburger Echo.[11] But they no longer count for anything. Incidentally, Ede got much more upset than he needed to over Bebel's, etc., criticism. Bebel was most reasonable, merely demanding that, so far as the form was concerned, his procedure should be such as not, at the very outset, to frighten off those readers with a tradition of Lassalle worship or to give the Old Lassalleans any justified grounds for complaint. To this was added the unfortunate circumstance that Ede had inserted a note that was admittedly quite uncalled for (because he turned it into a piece of tittle-tattle by using 'probably') about syphilis[12] and the worthy censors in Berlin did not spot this note until it was too late. The fact that they had made a hash of the business caused them, of course, to fly momentarily into a mighty Achillean rage whereupon Ede, of course, had to atone, not only for his own lapse but even more for theirs, by receiving a number of indignant letters. Naturally I have backed him up as best as I could throughout the whole affair.
The opposition press lives on the antithesis of the national Lassalle and the unpatriotic Social-Democrats. So they'll take care not to lay their hands on a book in which the legend of the nationalist Lassalle is so thoroughly demolished.
Ede's work is really very good and gave me great pleasure; it will elicit the major response it deserves in Germany — in the course of time — and, on completion of this edition, ought to be printed separately and/or expanded by Ede and divested of its special purpose. By then things will have progressed far enough for this to be perfectly feasible. In this country, too, it will have a good effect, for over here your socialistically inclined bourgeois is also seeking to oppose Marx by making a legend out of Lassalle.
I shall take another look at the letter Labriola wrote to Tussy. My impression is that it would be better not to print it. Labriola is very dissatisfied with the way things are going in Italy and I'm not sure that it may not have something to do with his disappointment over the fact that his joining the movement did not immediately revive and revolutionise it. So far as I recall, the letter was of the kind that might have elicited dozens of replies. Some strange things are certainly going on there.
You will regret Lafargue's translation from Pélagie to the Chamber. It will deprive you of many a nice article.
Addio.
Your
F.E.
Plekhanov's articles are excellent.[13]