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 :
Letter to Karl Marx, September 18, 1846
First published: slightly abridged in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, 1913 and in full in MEGA, 1929.
To Marx in Brussels
An extract from this letter was published in English for the first time in: Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1955.
Paris, 18 September 1846 11, rue de l'arbre sec[edit source]
Dear Marx,
A whole lot of things I wanted to write about privately have found their way into the business letter because that was the one I wrote first. No matter if the others read the rubbish for once.
Hitherto I have rather dreaded setting to work on the extracts from Feuerbach. Here in Paris the stuff strikes one as utterly insipid. But now that I've got the book [Feuerbach, Das Wesen der Religion] at home, I shall apply myself to it at the earliest opportunity. Weydemeyer’s sweet nonsense is touching. The fellow first declares that he wants to draft a manifesto in which he pronounces us blackguards and then expresses the hope that this won’t give rise to personal differences. Even in Germany such a thing would only be possible on the Hanoverian-Prussian border.
That you should still be in financial straits is abominable. I know of no publisher for our manuscripts [manuscripts for the quarterly, including that of The German Ideology] other than Leske who, while negotiations are proceeding, must be kept in the dark about our criticism of his firm. Löwenthal will certainly not take it. He has turned down, on all manner of rotten pretexts, a very good proposition from Bernays (a life of the old man here [Louis Philippe] in 2 volumes, the first to be printed forthwith and issued the moment the old man dies, the second to follow immediately afterwards). He’s also a coward and maintains he might be expelled from Frankfurt. Bernays has a prospect of acceptance by Brockhaus, who believes, of course, that the book is written in a bourgeois spirit.
Have the Westphalians [J. Meyer and R. Rempel] sent the manuscripts to Daniels?
And have you had any further details about the Cologne scheme? Hess wrote about it, you know.[1]
But Lüning’s rubbish is the most ludicrous of all. One can almost visualise the fellow as he daringly looses a hypocritical turd into his trousers. If we criticise them for their general baseness, [Marx and Engels, Circular Against Kriege] the noble fellow declares this to be ‘self-criticism’.[2] But soon these chaps will experience in their own persons the truth of the saying:
‘And if the noble fellow has no burn, on what does he propose to sit?'
[Goethe, Totalität]
And Westphalia seems gradually to be coming to realise that it has no bum or, in Moses’ [Hess] parlance, no ‘material basis’ for its communism.
Püttmann was not so wrong, where I am concerned, when he said that the people in Brussels were collaborating on Prometheus. Hear how cunningly this good-for-nothing set about it. Being also in need of money, I wrote to him suggesting that at last he fork out the fee he had owed me for so long.[3] The fellow answered that as to the fee for the first essay which he had printed in the Bürgerbuch, [Engels, Description of Recently Founded Communist Colonies Still in Existence] he had instructed Leske to pay it to me (naturally not yet to hand), but so far as the one for the second essay in the second of the Rheinische Jahrbücher [Engels, The Festival of Nations in London] was concerned, — he had already received it from the publisher but, since the German soi-disant [so-called] communists had left him, big P, together with his other big P, Prometheus, most shamefully in the lurch — he, P No. 1, had been compelled to use the fees (including those due to Ewerbeck, etc.) for the printing of P No. 2 and would not be able to pay us same for another x weeks. Fine fellows, if you don’t give them a manuscript, they keep the money. In such a manner does one become one of the Prometheus collaborators and shareholders.
Yesterday evening, when I was with the workers here, I read the ‘London Address’ already in print.[4] Trash. They address themselves to the ‘people’, i.e. the presumed proletarians in Schleswig-Holstein which is haunted exclusively by loutish, Low-German peasants and guildish Straubingers.[5] They have learnt from the English this nonsense, this total disregard for actual circumstances, this inability to comprehend an historical development. Instead of answering the question, they want the ‘people’ — who, in their sense of the word, don’t exist at all there — to disregard it and behave peacefully and passively; it doesn’t occur to them that the bourgeoisie continues to do as it likes. Except for the denigration of the bourgeoisie, which is somewhat superfluous and entirely at odds with their conclusions (and for which free-trade catchwords could equally well be substituted), the thing could have been the work of London’s free-trade press, which does not want to see Schleswig-Holstein enter the Customs Union.[6]
That Julius is in the pay of the Prussians and writes for Rother has already been hinted at in the German papers.[7] Bourgeois [Heinrich Burgers], who was so delighted with his noble works, according to d'Ester, will be pleased when he hears of it.
A propos Schleswig-Holstein, the day before yesterday the Coachman [Georg Weber] wrote to Ewerbeck in 3 lines that caution should now be exercised in the matter of letters, since everything is being opened by the Danes. He believes that it could come to armed action.
Dubito [I doubt it], but it’s good that the old Dane [Christian VIII] should so rudely harry the Schleswig-Holsteiners.[8] By the way, did you read the famous poem ‘Schleswig-Holstein, Sea-girt Land’, in the Rheinischer Beobachter? [M. F. Chemnitz, ‘Schleswig-Holsteinische Bundeslied’, Rheinischer Beobachter, 16 Sept. 1846. Engels parodies the song] I can’t possibly remember the words, but it goes something like this:
Schleswig-Holstein, of like stock sprung, Schleswig-Holstein, sea-girt land,
Schleswig-Holstein, German tongue, — Schleswig-Holstein German strand,
Schleswig-Holstein, to action stung, Schleswig-Holstein, fiery brand,
Schleswig-Holstein, hardly wrung, Schleswig-Holstein, make a stand,
Schleswig-Holstein, lustily sung, ‘Schleswig-Holstein, may Danes be banned.
Schleswig-Holstein, loudly rung, ‘Schleswig-Holstein’, throughout th’ land!
Schleswig-Holstein, strong of lung, Schleswig-Holstein, weak of hand,
Schleswig-Holstein, loutish young, Schleswig-Holstein, beastly band.
Schleswig-Holstein, of like stock sprung; Keep troth, O Fatherland, is how the drivel ends. It’s a ghastly song, worthy of being sung by the Dithmarschen,[9] who in turn are worthy of being besung by Püttmann.
The Cologne bourgeois are bestirring themselves. They have issued a protest [Kölnische Zeitung, 10 Sept. 1846] against the gentlemen of the Ministry, which is the most a German citizen can do.[10] The poor Berlin pulpit-drubber [Frederick William IV]! He’s at loggerheads with every municipal council in his kingdom; first the Berlin theological controversy,[11] then the Breslau ditto, now the Cologne business. The rascal, by the way, is the spitting image of James I of England, whom he really seems to have taken for his model. No doubt, like the latter, he too will shortly start burning witches.
I did Proudhon a really crying injustice in my business letter. Since there was no room in this last letter, I must make amends here. For I believed he had perpetrated a trifling nonsense, a nonsense within the bounds of sense. Yesterday the matter came up again and was discussed at great length, and it was then I learned that this new nonsense is in truth wholly unbounded nonsense. Imagine: Proletarians are to save in the form of small shares. This will enable the initial building (needless to say no start can be made with fewer than 10,000-20,000 workers) of one or more workshops devoted to one or more trades, some of the shareholders to be occupied there and the products to be sold, 1) to the shareholders (who thus have no profit to pay for) at the price of the raw material plus labour, and 2) any surplus to be sold on the world market at the current price. As the association’s capital is increased by new shareholders joining or by new savings of the old ones, this will be used for building new workshops and factories and so on and so forth, until all the proletarians are employed, all the country’s productive forces have been bought up, thereby depriving the capital still in bourgeois hands of the power to command labour and produce profit! Thus capital is abolished by ‘finding an authority under which capital, i.e. the interest system’ (Grünification of the erstwhile drott d'aubaine,[12] brought somewhat closer to the light of day) ‘so to speak disappears.’ In this sentence, repeated countless times by Papa Eisermann, hence learned by rote from Grün, you will readily discern a glimmering of the original Proudhonian flourishes. By dint of proletarian savings, and by waiving the profit and interest on their capital, these people intend, for the present, to buy up the whole of France, no more nor less, and later, perhaps, the rest of the world as well. Was ever more splendid plan devised, and if you want to perform a tour de force, what quicker way than to coin five franc pieces out of silver moonshine? And the workers here, fools that they are — the Germans, I mean — believe this rubbish, they who can’t keep six sous in their pockets to visit a marchand de vin on the evenings of their meetings, propose to buy up toute la belle France with their savings. Rothschild and company are mere dabblers compared with these mighty accapareurs [buyers-up]. It’s enough to make anyone throw a fit. Grün has so confused the fellows that the most nonsensical platitude makes more sense to them than the simplest fact adduced for the purpose of economic argument. It is disgraceful that one should still have to pit oneself against such barbaric nonsense. But one must be patient, and I shall not let the fellows go until I have driven Grün from the field and have swept the cobwebs from their brains. The only fellow clear-headed enough to see through the whole nonsense is our lunge who was in Brussels. Ewerbeck, too, has crammed the fellows’ heads with the most crackbrained stuff. You've no idea what desperate confusion the fellow is in; at times he verges on madness, being unable to tell you today what he saw with his own eyes, let alone heard, yesterday. To show to what extent he has been under Grün’s thumb, it need only be said that when last winter Walthr, of Trier,[13] was complaining to all and sundry about the censors, Grün represented him as a martyr to the censorship, one who was waging the noblest and bravest of battles, etc., and induced Ewerbeck and the workers to draw up and sign a highly pompous address to this jackass, Walthr, thanking him for his heroism in the struggle for freedom of speech!!!! Ewerbeck is hanging his head in shame and is furiously angry with himself; but the stupidity has been done, and now it’s a question of knocking out of him and the workers the few platitudes he has dinned into his own head with toil and sweat before drumming same into the workers with no less toil and sweat. For he understands nothing until he has learnt it by rote and even then usually misunderstands it. If he were not so tremendously well-intentioned, besides being such an amiable chap — more so now than ever before, — there would be absolutely nothing doing with him. I can’t help wondering how I manage to get on with him; sometimes he makes quite apposite remarks, only to relapse at once into some colossal inanity — as, for instance, in his divinely inspired lectures on German history, whose every word is so beset with howlers and follies that it’s difficult not to burst out laughing. But, as already mentioned, tremendous zeal and remarkable readiness to join in everything with imperturbable good humour and self-mockery. I like the fellow better than ever, in spite of his silliness.
There is little to be said about Bernays. I have been out there several times and he here once. Coming here probably this winter, only short of money. Westphalians sent him 200 francs by way of a bribe; he accepted the money, but naturally did nothing further about it. Weydemeyer had offered him the money previously; he writes to say he must have 2,000 francs, otherwise it won’t be any use to him. I told him what the Westphalians’ answer would be — that they were unable to turn anything into liquid cash etc., and so it literally was. In token of his gratitude he is keeping the 200 francs. He is living quite happily, makes no secret to anyone of his whole calamitous story, is on quite happy terms with other people, lives like a peasant, works in the garden, eats well, sleeps, I suspect, with a peasant girl, and has also ceased to parade his sorrows. He is even coming to entertain more lucid and sensible views about party disputes, although, whenever something of the kind occurs, he likes to imagine himself more or less in the role of a Camille Desmoulins, and is generally unsuited to be a party man; there’s no arguing with him about his legal opinions because he always tries to break off with the objection that economy, industry, etc., is not his subject and, on the rare occasions we meet, no proper discussion takes place. I think, however, that I have already succeeded in partly breaching his defences and, if he comes here, I shall probably be able to cure him finally of his misapprehensions.
What is everyone doing there?
Your
E.
QUERY: Ought not the people in London [London leaders of the League of the Just — K. Schapper, J. Moll and H. Bauer] to be told the story of the Tolstoy affair, which is absolutely correct? If he continues to play the same role among the Germans, they might at some time dreadfully compromise one or two Poles.. And supposing the fellow were to cite you?
Bernays has written a pamphlet as part of the Rothschild controversy[14]; a German edition is appearing in Switzerland and a French one here in a few days’ time.
- ↑ When the Westphalian publishers Meyer and Rempel finally refused to help in the publication of the polemical works of Marx and Engels (The German Ideology), of Hess and other authors (*), Marx demanded, through Weydemeyer, that the manuscripts ready for publication should be dispatched from Westphalia to Roland Daniels in Cologne. This decision was taken because there was a project to start a joint-stock company for the publication of socialist literature, which was supported by a group of Cologne communists. Here Engels asks Marx how the project was faring.
In the summer of 1846 the project found support among the members of the socialist movement in Cologne (Bürgers, d'Ester, Hess). Some German bourgeois sympathising with socialism were also expected to finance the publication. This and other similar projects were repeatedly discussed by Marx and Engels in their correspondence. The present letter also deals with this below.
(*) A reference to the two volumes of a quarterly journal the publication of which was negotiated in 1845 and 1846 with a number of Westphalian socialists, the publishers Julius Meyer and Rudolph Rempel among others. Marx and Engels intended to publish in it their criticism of The German Ideology which they started to write in the autumn of 1845. It was also planned to publish a number of polemical works by their fellow-thinkers, in the first place those containing criticism of German philosophical literature and the works of the ‘true socialists’.
In November 1845 Hess reached an agreement with Meyer and Rempel on financing the publication of two volumes of the quarterly. Further negotiations were conducted by Weydemeyer, who visited Brussels in February 1846 and returned to Germany in April on the instruction of the Brussels Communist Correspondence Committee. In a letter to the Committee of 30 April 1846 from Schildesche (Westphalia) he wrote that no headway was being made and that he proposed that Meyer should form a joint-stock company in Limburg (Holland), as in Germany manuscripts of less than 20 printed sheets were subject to preliminary censorship. He also recommended that Marx should sign a contract with the Brussels publisher and bookseller C. G. Vogler for the distribution of the quarterly and other publications. The contract was not concluded because Vogler could not assume even part of the expenses.
Weydemeyer continued his efforts, but succeeded only in getting from Meyer a guarantee for the publication of one volume. But as early as July 1846 Meyer and Rempel refused their promised assistance on the pretext of financial difficulties, the actual reason being differences in principle between Marx and Engels on the one hand and the champions of ‘true socialism’ on the other, whose views both publishers shared.
Marx and Engels did not abandon their hopes of publishing the works ready for the quarterly, if only by instalments, but their attempts failed. The extant manuscript of The German Ideology was first published in full in the Soviet Union in 1932. - ↑ In July 1846 Das Westphälische Dampfboot published ‘Circular Against Kriege’ written by Marx and Engels. However, the editor of the journal, Otto Lüning, a representative of ‘true socialism’ criticised in the circular, subjected the text to tendentious editing and in a number of places glossed over the sharp principled criticism of this trend. Yet he had to admit in the conclusion that in publishing the circular the journal was criticising itself.
- ↑ Engels’ letter to Püttmann has not been found.
In the summer of 1846 Hermann Püttmann, a radical journalist and ‘true socialist’, put out a prospectus of the journal Prometheus, whose publication was planned. Among its probable contributors he included ‘people in Brussels’, i.e. members of the Brussels Communist Correspondence Committee. The only issue — a double one — of Prometheus appeared at the end of 1846. Neither Marx nor Engels contributed to it. - ↑ A reference to the joint address of the German Readers’ Society and German Workers’ Educational Society in London (*) on the Schleswig-Holstein problem. When the Educational Society passed it on 13 September 1846, it was printed as a leaflet; then it was published in the Deutsche Londoner Zeitung, No. 77, 18 September 1846 and, translated into English, in The Northern Star, No. 463, 27 September 1846.
As early as 17 September the leaflets were delivered to Paris and distributed by the members of the League of the Just. It was then that Engels acquainted himself with the address.
The address to the working people of Schleswig and Holstein emphasised the interests common to the workers of all countries. But the attempt to contrast proletarian internationalism with bourgeois nationalism did not escape the influence of ‘true socialism’, which opposed the struggle for bourgeois-democratic freedoms and the bourgeois-democratic national movements.
(*) The German Workers’ Educational Society in London was founded in February 1840 by Karl Schapper, Joseph Moll and other members of the League of the Just, its aim being political education of workers and dissemination of socialist ideas among them. After the Communist League had been founded the leading role in the Society belonged to the League’s local communities. In 1847 and 1849-50 Marx and Engels took an active part in the Society’s work. - ↑ Straubingers — travelling journeymen in Germany. Marx and Engels used this term for German artisans, including some participants in the working-class movement of that time, who were still largely swayed by guild prejudices and cherished the petty-bourgeois illusion that it was possible to return from capitalist large-scale industry to petty handicraft production.
- ↑ The Customs Union (Zollverein) of German states (initially including 18 states), establishing a common customs frontier, was founded in 1834 and headed by Prussia. By the 1840s the Union embraced all the German states except Austria, the Hanseatic towns (Bremen, Lübeck, Hamburg) and some small states. Formed owing to the necessity for an all-German market, the Customs Union subsequently promoted Germany’s political unification.
- ↑ An allusion to the Berliner Zeitungs-Halle published by Gustav Julius from 1846 and used by him to attack the liberal bourgeoisie using typically ‘true socialist’ arguments. By these tactics the Prussian ruling circles wanted to cause clashes between the different opposition groups.
During the 1848-49 revolution, however, the Berliner Zeitungs-Halle expressed the views of the left democratic forces. - ↑ The government of Christian VIII tried in all possible ways to strengthen its rule over the German population in the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein which had been ceded to Denmark by decision of the Vienna Congress of 18 15. On the other hand, up to 1848 the national movement in Schleswig-Holstein did not go beyond the bounds of moderate liberal opposition and pursued the separatist aim of setting up another small German state. Influenced by the revolutionary events of 1848, however, it assumed a liberation character. The struggle for the secession of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark became a part of the progressive struggle in Germany for the national unification of the country and was supported by Marx and Engels.
- ↑ Dithmarschen — a district in the south-west of present-day Schleswig-Holstein. It was remarkable for its peculiar historical development; in particular, up to the second half of the nineteenth century there were still survivals of patriarchal customs and the communal system preserved among the peasants even after the conquest by Danish and Holstein feudal lords in the sixteenth century.
- ↑ A reference to the Cologne citizens’ protest against the official report of the War Minister von Boyen, the Minister of the interior von Bodelschwingh and the Chief Counsellor of Justice Ruppenthal on the Cologne disturbances of 3 and 4 August 1846.
During the campaign for the elections to the local councils in Cologne which started at the end of June 1846, it was obvious at the very first meetings that the Cologne communists had a considerable influence on the petty-bourgeois electors (the Prussian workers were virtually deprived of suffrage). In the course of the election campaign, disorders took place in Cologne on 3 and 4 August, and were suppressed by the army. The people indignantly demanded that the troops should be withdrawn to their barracks and a civic militia organised. Karl d'Ester, a Cologne communist, described these disturbances in an unsigned pamphlet Bericht über die Ereignisse zu Köln vom 3. und 4. August und den folgenden Tagen, published in Mannheim in 1846. - ↑ A reference to the General Synod convened in Berlin in the summer of 1846 on the initiative of Frederick William IV, at which an unsuccessful attempt was made to reduce the differences between the Lutheran and Reformist (Calvinist) trends of Protestantism, the contradictions between which grew more acute despite their forced union in 1817.
- ↑ Droit d'aubaine (the right of escheat) — a feudal custom widespread in France and other countries during the Middle Ages, according to which the property of aliens dying without heirs reverted to the crown.
- ↑ From 1841 Friedrich Walthr published the radical Trier’sche Zeitung, which during the period dealt with was a mouthpiece of the ‘true socialists’, but he had no influence on the paper’s political line.
- ↑ A reference to the numerous anonymous pamphlets (about thirty, as Engels pointed out in his ‘Government and Opposition in France’, see MECW, Vol. 6, pp. 61-63) published in France against Rothschild (one of the authors was the French worker Dairnvaell). Directed against one of the biggest bankers of France, they testified to the growing opposition to the July monarchy regime which relied on financial tycoons.