| Category | Template | Form |
|---|---|---|
| Text | Text | Text |
| Author | Author | Author |
| Collection | Collection | Collection |
| Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
| Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
| Template | Form |
|---|---|
| BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
| BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
| BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
Draft of a Reply to the Editors of the Sächsische Arbeiter-Zeitung
| Author(s) | Frederick Engels |
|---|---|
| Written | 6 September 1890 |
First published in: Marx and Engels, Works, First Russian Edition, Vol. XVI, Part II, Moscow, 1936
Printed according to the manuscript
Source : Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 27
Engels wrote the “Draft of a Reply to the Editors of the Sächsische Arbeiter-Zeitung” following the attempt of the editorial board, which was made up of members of the “Young“ opposition group, to present his work as supporting the newspaper’s campaign against the policies pursued by the German Social-Democratic leadership. In late August 1890 the materials carried by the newspaper, which had an independent status, placed it under the party and resulted in the resignation of its editorial board which tried, in its farewell article, to present this as a consequence of a build-up of “petty-bourgeois parliamentary socialism“ in the party and to take advantage of Engels’ authority to promote its own ends. The indignant Engels felt compelled to deal a public rebuff to the “Young”.
This version of the reply to the editors of the Sächsische Arbeiter-Zeitung was not completed and exists as a rough draft. The final version was printed by Der Sozialdemokrat, the Berliner Volksblatt and the Sächsische Arbeiter-Zeitung and went a long way towards exposing the “Young’s“ true colours. Engels’ reply was also carried by the Arbeiter-Zeitung, No. 38, September 19, 1890.
The “Young”— a petty-bourgeois semi-anarchist opposition group in German Social Democracy, which finally took shape in 1890. At that time, its leadership was made up of students and aspiring writers (hence the name of the opposition), who claimed the role of party theorists and leaders for themselves. Among the “Young’s“ leaders were Paul Ernst, Paul Kampffmeyer, Hans Müller, and Bruno Wille. Failing to realise that the conditions of party work had changed following the repeal of the Anti-Socialist Law, the “Young“ refused to employ legal methods of struggle, opposed the Social Democrats‘ participation in parliamentary elections and the use of parliamentary methods, and accused the party and its leadership of defending the interests of petty-bourgeoisie, opportunism, and a departure from democratic principles. In October 1891, the Erfurt congress of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany expelled some of the opposition leaders from the party.
In their farewell message in No. 105 (August 31, 1890) the retiring editors of the Sächsische Arbeiter-Zeitung state that petty-bourgeois parliamentary socialism now had a majority in Germany. But majorities often very quickly became minorities,
“and so the retiring editors of the Sächsische Arbeiter-Zeitung join Friedrich Engels in hoping that, as the naive state socialism of Lassalle was overcome in the past, the success-hungry parliamentary tendency among the present-day Social Democrats will also soon be overcome by the common sense of the German working class”.[1]
Had I been able to entertain the slightest doubt about the nature of the latest student revolt in our German party, then my eyes would have been opened by this height of impertinence displayed by the ex-editors of one of its main organs. The ex-editors “join“ me in hoping—therefore I join them in hoping—that the tendency represented by people such as Auer, Bebel, Liebknecht, Singer should soon have the minority, and that the “principled attitude“ represented by the ex-editors the majority of the German workers behind it. This means that the hopes of the ex-editors have been directly and falsely attributed to me and I shall see that they are made to answer for this personally.
I have felt no urge to involve myself in the brawl initiated by these student gents and men of letters. However, I have expressed my opinion frankly to all who wished to hear it. And if the brawling gents want to hear it publicly, so be it.
When these gents began to kick up a row against the party executive and the parliamentary group, I asked myself in surprise: what are they after? What is all this aimed at? As far as I could see, there was no reason at all for the whole enormous palaver. On the disputed question of May Day the party executive had perhaps hesitated too long with its declaration. However, it consisted of five persons, living in four widely separated places, and needing time to reach an understanding. But when it spoke, it said the right thing, the only fitting thing in the situation. Events in Hamburg have proved it more than right.[2]
In the debate some members of the parliamentary group and the party executive have certainly been clumsy. Things like this occur always and everywhere, and reflect upon the individual, not the whole group. In its draft rules the parliamentary group has been responsible for some few offences against the democratic code of conduct.[3] But this is only a draft, and it is up to the Party Congress to adopt it, reject it, or amend it. The London Conference of the International in 1871 also committed such sins of form, and the Bakuninists immediately took them up, making them the formal lever for their attacks on the General Council.[4] For all that, everybody knows today that the real democracy rested in the General Council, and not in the Bakuninist Council,[5] which had engineered a whole secret conspiratorial apparatus in order to put the International at its service.
When, at the time of the Steamer Subsidy, the then parliamentary group did not for a moment know what it wanted, and sought to make the editors of the Sozialdemokrat the scapegoat for their own perplexity, I took a thoroughly decisive stand on the side of the editors and against the parliamentary group.[6] I would do the same again today were the parliamentary group or the party executive really to do things which seriously endangered the party. But there is no question of anything of this sort today; the
 | The manuscript breaks off here.—Ed. |
- ↑ "An unsere Leser!", Sächsische Arbeiter-Zeitung, No. 105, August 31, 1890.— Ed
- ↑ Engels is referring to the address to the German workers issued by the Social-Democratic group in the Reichstag on April 13, 1890, in connection with the celebration of May Day resolved by the Paris International Socialist Workers’ Congress of 1889 (see Note 91). The address was published in the Berliner Volksblatt on April 15, 1890. It was the party leadership’s reply to the demand by the “Young“ opposition for a general strike on May 1 which had been made public on March 23. It pointed out the dangers of such a course while the Anti-Socialist Law was still in force and in the situation created by the elections of February 20, 1890, with its feasibility of provocation from the reactionary authorities which were eager for any excuse to smash the Social-Democratic Party. The address warned the German workers not to give any excuse for provocations, to abandon the idea of a general strike, stop work only when a serious conflict was clearly impossible and confine themselves elsewhere to demonstrations and meetings. On May 1, strikes involving over 10-per cent of the workforce took place in a number of cities. On May 1, Hamburg construction workers launched a strike that lasted into July. The strikers demanded a 9-hour working day and a pay rise. The employers carried out their threat of a lockout and the strike failed, the trade union funds having run out. However, the employers failed to introduce a ban on workers joining the trade unions.
- ↑ In the years when the Anti-Socialist Law was in force (see Note 2), the Social-Democratic group in the Reichstag was the only legal body that could assume leadership of the party. An attempt was made to have the group's supremacy over the party's elective bodies perpetuated in the Rules even after the repeal of the Law.
- ↑ The London Conference of the First International was held from September 17 to 23, 1871. Convened against the background of harsh reprisals against the International's members following the defeat of the Paris Commune, this Conference was held behind closed doors and was not very representative: taking part in it were 22 voting delegates and 10 without the right to vote. The countries that were unable to send a delegate were represented by corresponding secretaries. Marx represented Germany, and Engels Italy. All in all, nine closed sessions were held. The reports were not intended for publication. The Conference resolutions were made public in November and December 1871. For the Conference's materials, see present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 409-31. The London Conference was a landmark in Marx’s and Engels’ efforts to found a proletarian party. It adopted a resolution “On the Political Action of the Working Class”, which described the need to establish an independent workers’ Party as a fundamental principle of the international working-class movement. The Hague Congress of the International (1872) decided to incorporate the main part of the resolution into the General Rules of the International Working Men’s Association. Other Conference resolutions set out major tactical and organisational principles of a proletarian party. Approval of these resolutions signified a victory for Marxism in the International. At its congress in Sonvillier held on November 12, 1871, the Bakuninist Jura Federation adopted the Circulaire à toutes les Fédérations de l'Association internationale des travailleurs, which demanded immediate convocation of a congress of the International in view of the fact that the Conference was not entitled to pass decisions pertaining to the rules and organisational principles of the Association. In actual fact, the Sonvillier Circular was designed to undermine the authority of the General Council in the International Working Men’s Association. For more details, see: Frederick Engels, “The Congress of Sonvillier and the International" (present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 64-70).
- ↑ The reference is to the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy (L'Alliance internationale de la deâmocratie socialiste) founded by Mikhail Bakunin in Geneva in October 1868. Its petty-bourgeois anarchist programme demanded recognition of the equality of classes and abolition of the state. Members of the Alliance denied the need for political action by the working class. Organisation-ally, the Alliance was based on the unconditional subordination of the rank-and-file members to a tiny group of "initiated". Having been denied admittance to the International in March 1869, the Bakuninists declared the dissolution of the Alliance while in fact preserving it and working their way into the International under the guise of the Geneva section. The Alliance, with Bakunin at its head, plotted and campaigned against Marx and Engels seeking to gain control over the General Council. The Alliance stepped up its activities against the International after the defeat of the Paris Commune, when Bakunin and his followers attacked the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the consolidation of an independent working-class political party. The Hague Congress of September 1872 expelled Bakunin and Guillaume, the leaders of the Alliance, from the International by a majority vote. Soon after the Hague Congress, the Alliance disintegrated.
- ↑ Late in 1884, seeking to boost Germany's colonial policy, Bismarck demanded that the Reichstag institute annual subsidies to shipping companies for the purpose of establishing regular communication with Eastern Asia, Australia and Africa. This government demand provoked a controversy within the Social-Democratic group in the Reichstag. The Left wing headed by Bebel and Liebknecht took Engels' advice and opposed it. The opportunist majority in the group, including Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Dietz, F. Frohme and C. Grillen-berger, intended to vote for the subsidies under the false pretext of wishing to promote international contacts. Under pressure from the majority, the group passed a decision which stated that the issue of subsidies was of no great importance, and gave each member of the group a right to vote as he saw fit. It declared the intention of the majority of Social-Democratic deputies to vote for the subsidies. The stand taken by the Right wing was unequivocally censured by the bulk of party members and its central organ, Der Sozialdemokrat, whose struggle against the opportunists was warmly supported by Engels. Sharp criticism forced the majority to somewhat modify their attitude to the government plan at the time it was debated in the Reichstag in March 1885, making support by the group conditional on the Reichstag's acceptance of a number of its proposals (e.g., that the ships to be used on such routes be built at German shipyards). When the Reichstag rejected them, the entire Social-Democratic group voted against the project, which, however, was passed by a majority vote.