Letter to Paul Lafargue, June 27, 1893

ENGELS TO PAUL LAFARGUE 35

AT LE PERREUX

London, 27 June 1893 My dear Lafargue,

You were absolutely right to protest against the imbecilities of the anarchists and Boulangeo-Jingoes; 226 even though Millerand and Jaurès (who certainly preceded you in this matter) contributed to this that does not matter. Particularly on the eve of a general election 156 it is impossible to leave the field wide open to slander. So we are agreed on this point; the Germans have done as much on more than one occasion, to the great distress of Bonnier who moves in an idealistic anti-patriotic sphere (though mainly anti-patriotic for others, since no one wishes more than he that 'France should take the lead in the movement'). And here is the National Council uncompromisingly declaring itself patriotic—and at the very moment when the elections in Germany 204 quite as uncompromisingly prove that it is not France which is taking the lead at present—poor Bonnier, he was here on Sunday, and looked quite abashed.

Your declaration will have its effect in France, I hope, and I hope with equal fervour that it will go unnoticed in Germany. This is why: they are not grave matters, but I believe I should draw your attention to them to make sure you avoid them next time.

I don't want to speak of your use of the word patriot, of what you define as the only 'true' patriots.

That word has a limited meaning-or else such a vague one, depending on circumstances-that for my part I should never dare to apply that title to myself. I have spoken to non-Germans as a German, in the same way as I speak to Germans as a pure Internationalist; I think you could have achieved a greater effect if you had simply called yourself French—which is a statement of fact, a fact including the logical consequences which flow from it. But no matter, it's a question of style.

You are again perfectly right in extolling France's revolutionary past, and to believe that its revolutionary past will find response in its socialist future. But it seems to me that, having reached that point, you incline a little too far towards Blanquism, i.e., towards the theory that France is destined to play the same role in the proletarian revolution (not merely that of initiator but also that of leader) as it played in the bourgeois revolution of 1789-98. This is contrary to the economic and political facts of today. The industrial development of France has lagged behind that of England; at this juncture it is behind that of Germany which has made giant strides since 1860; the working-class movement in France today cannot be compared to that of Germany. But it is not the French, nor the Germans, nor the British who, by themselves, will win the glory of having crushed capitalism; if France—

PERHAPS—gives the signal, it will be in Germany, the country most profoundly influenced by socialism and where the theory has the most deeply penetrated the masses—where the fight will be settled, and even then neither France nor Germany will ensure final victory so long as England remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Proletarian emancipation can be only an international deed; if you try to turn it into a purely French deed you are making it impossible. The exclusively French leadership of the bourgeois revolution—albeit inevitable, thanks to the stupidity and cowardice of the other nations—led to—do you know what?—to Napoleon, to conquest, to the invasion of the Holy Alliance. To try and assign the same role to France in the future is to distort the international proletarian movement, as, indeed, the Blanquists do, and make France look ridiculous, for beyond your frontiers such pretensions are made fun of.

And look where this leads you. You speak of

France, at ITS immortal Paris Congress in 1889, 227 raised the banner, etc., etc.

How you in Paris would laugh if the Belgians spoke of Belgium at ITS immortal Brussels Congress of 1891, 228 or Switzerland at ITS immortal Zurich Congress! 229 Furthermore, the actions of these congresses are actions neither French, Belgian nor yet Swiss, but international.

Then you say:

the French Workers' Party 11 is at one with German Social-Democracy against the German Empire, with the Belgian Workers' Party 230 against the Cobourg monarchy, with the Italians against the Savoy monarchy, etc., etc.

There would be nothing against all that if you had added: and all these parties are at one with us against the bourgeois Republic which oppresses us, Panamises us and ties us to the Russian tsar. After all, your Republic was made by old William^[1] and Bismarck; it is quite as bourgeois as any of our monarchist governments, and you mustn't suppose that with the cry of 'Long live the Republic' on the day after Panama, 60 you will find a single supporter in the whole of Europe. The republican form is no more than the simple negation of monarchy—and the overthrow of the monarchy will be accomplished simply as a corollary to revolution; in Germany the bourgeois parties are so bankrupt that we shall pass at once from monarchy to the social republic. Hence you cannot go on opposing your bourgeois republic to the monarchies as something to which other nations should aspire. Your republic and our monarchies are all one in relation to the proletariat^[2] ; if you help us against our monarchist bourgeois, we shall help you against your republican bourgeois. It's a case of reciprocity and by no means the deliverance of the downtrodden Monarchists by the great-hearted French Republicans; this doesn't tally with the international outlook and even less with the historical situation which has brought your republic to the feet of the tsar. Don't forget that, if France makes war on Germany in the interests and with the help of the tsar, it is Germany which will be the revolutionary centre.

But there is another very regrettable affair. You are

'at one with German Social-Democracy against the German Empire'.

This has been translated in the bourgeois press as gegen das deutsche Reich'.'^[3] And that is what everybody will see in it. For Empire means 'Reich' as well as 'Kaisertum' (imperial regime); but in 'Reich' the emphasis is laid on the central power as representing national unity, and for this, the political condition of their existence, the German Socialists would fight to the end. Never would we wish to reduce Germany to the pre-1866 state of division and impotence. Had you said against the emperor, or against the imperial regime, no one could have said much, although poor William^[4] is hardly of a stature to deserve being honoured in this way; it is the owning class, landlords and capitalists, which is the enemy; and that is so clearly understood in Germany that our workmen will not understand the meaning of your offer to help them to defeat the crackpot of Berlin.

So I have asked Liebknecht not to mention your declaration insofar as the bourgeois papers do not do so; but if, based upon this unfortunate expression, there were attacks on our people as traitors, it would give rise to a rather painful argument.

To sum up: a little more reciprocity could do no harm—equality between nations is as necessary as that between individuals.

On the other hand, your manner of speaking of the republic as a desirable thing in itself for the proletariat, and of France as the chosen people, prevents you mentioning the—unpleasant but undeniable—fact of the Russian alliance, or rather the Russian vassalage.

Well, that's enough, I think. I hope I have convinced you that in the first flush of your renascent patriotism you have overshot the mark a little. Not that it is very important and I hope the thing will go by without raising a dust, but should it recur it might lead to unpleasant controversies. Your published documents, though intended for France, must also PASS MUSTER abroad. If it comes to that, our worthy Germans have not always been correct either, in all their expressions.

As for the German elections, I am prouder of the defeats than of the successes. We have lost Stuttgart by a minority of 128 votes out of 31,000 electors, Lübeck by 154 out of 20,000, and so on. On this occasion all the parties formed a coalition against us; even the democrats of the South, who left us in the lurch at Stuttgart, at Mannheim, at Pforzheim, at Speyer and voted for us only in Frankfurt. What we won we owe—for the first time— entirely to our own strength. Consequently the 44 seats are worth ten times more than 100 won with the help of the liberals and democrats.

Liberalism has completely abdicated in Germany. There is no real opposition outside our Party. William will have his soldiers, his taxes and— his Socialists in the army and outside the army, in ever-growing numbers. The final figure of the socialist votes will not be known for 10-15 days; Bebel thinks it will not be above 2 million; the season was against us, many workers are scattered in the countryside during the summer and omitted from the register, he estimates the resulting deficit for us at more than 100,000 votes.

The Amiens, amende honorable is splendid! There's no one like the French for these strokes of genius against obsolete laws. 231

Love to Laura and to you from Louise. Kiss Laura for me.

Ever yours,

F. E.