Letter to Georgi Plekhanov, May 21, 1894

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

To Plekhanov in Mornex, France

London, May 21, 1894

My dear Plekhanov,

First of all, please spare me ‘mentor’—my name is simply Engels.

Next, thank you for your information. I have sent a registered letter to M. Krichevsky to say that the introduction to Wage Labour and Capital, and also the articles on Russia in Articles on International Themes from the Newspaper ‘Volksstaat’ are, according to the Berne Convention, my literary property, and that any translation requires my consent; that I am obliged, in the interests of the cause, to stand upon my rights in order to prevent translations by incapable or otherwise incompetent (or unauthorised) individuals; that therefore it was simply his duty to request my permission beforehand, which he did not do; that as a result I would enter a formal protest against his actions, and reserve all my rights; that, as regards the articles on Russia, I protested all the more since I had already committed myself, having granted authorisation for a Russian translation of these and other works to Madame Vera Zasulich.

If he now persists in publishing, we shall see; in any case, please let me know if it appears, and send me a copy.

As he also announces a translation of Kautsky’s Erfurt Programme, I felt obliged to warn the latter of the methods being used in my regard. I told him nothing of what you wrote to me, but I told him that dishonesty was involved, and that he should get in touch with you to learn more.

I hoped to see Mendelson yesterday evening, but I hear that his wife is ill. If I can, I shall go to see him this week.

Thank you in advance for the copy of your Chernyshevsky. I await it impatiently.

Here things are moving, though slowly and in zigzags. Take for instance Mawdsley, the leader of the Lancashire textile workers. He’s a Tory: in politics a Conservative and in religion a devout believer. Three years ago these gentry were violently opposed to the eight-hour day, today they vehemently demand it. In a quite recent manifesto Mawdsley, who last year was a fierce opponent of any separate policy for the working class, declared that the textile workers must take up the question of direct representation in Parliament, and a Manchester labour newspaper calculated that the Lancashire textile workers might control twelve seats in Parliament in this county alone. As you see, it is the Trade Union that will enter Parliament. It is the branch of industry and not the class that demands representation. Still, it is a step forward. Let us first smash the enslavement of the workers to the two big bourgeois parties, let us have textile workers in Parliament just as we already have miners there. As soon as a dozen branches of industry are represented class consciousness will arise of itself.

The height of comedy is reached in this manifesto when Mawdsley demands bimetallism to maintain the supremacy of English cotton fabrics on the Indian market.

One is indeed driven to despair by these English workers with their sense of imaginary national superiority, with their essentially bourgeois ideas and viewpoints, with their “practical” narrow-mindedness, with the parliamentary corruption which has seriously infected the leaders. But things are moving none the less. The only thing is that the “practical” English will be the last to arrive, but when they do arrive their contribution will weigh quite heavy in the scale.

My greetings to Axelrod and his family,

Yours,

F. Engels