University of Virginia Library

A classical example of the extent to which the fear of injuring the socialist organization will lead even the finest intelligences of the party to play tricks with socialist theory is afforded by the history of that celebrated preface which in 1895 Frederick Engels wrote for a posthumous edition of Marx's book, Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich, 1848-9. This preface became the subject of great international discussions, and has been justly considered as the first vigourous manifestation of reformism in German socialism. For Engels here declares that socialist tactics will have more success through the use of legal than of illegal and revolutionary means, and thus expressly repudiates the Marxist conception of the socialist revolution. It was not till some years later that Kautsky published a letter from Engels in which the latter disavowed his preface, saying: “My text had to suffer from the timid legalism of our friends in Berlin, who dreaded a second edition of the anti-socialist laws—a dread to which I was forced to pay attention at the existing political juncture” (Karl Kautsky, Der Weg zur Macht, Buchandlung “Vorwarts,” 1909, p. 42). From this it would appear that the theory (at that time brand-new) that socialism could attain to its ends by parliamentary methods—and this was the quintessence of Engels' preface—came into existence from a fear lest the socialist party organization (which should be a means, and not an end in itself) might suffer at the hands of the state. Thus Engels was feted, on the one hand, as a man of sound judgment and one willing to look facts in the face (cf. W. Sombart, Friedrich Engels, Ein Blatt zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Sozialismus, Separat-Abdruck der “Zukunft,” Berlin, 1895, p. 32), and was attacked, on the other hand, as a pacifist utopist (cf. Arturo Labriola, Riforme e Rivoluzione sociale, ed. cit., pp. 181 and 224); whereas in reality Engels would seem to have been the victim of an opportunist sacrifice of principles to the needs of organization, a sacrifice made for love of the party and in opposition to his own theoretical convictions.

As is well-known, in 1871 Bebel, in open Reichstag, declared himself opposed to the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, an annexation which had already been completed, and, with the sole support of Liebknecht, pushed his theoretical opposition to war to the point of voting, in war-time, against the military credits. Bakunin cherished no affection either for the Marxists or for the Germans, but he was unable to refuse his admiration to the youthful Marxist party in Germany, which had had the sublime courage to proclaim “in Germany, in the country where freedom is least known, under the triumphant military regime of Bismarck, its ardent sympathies for the principles and heroes of the Commune” (M. Bakunin, Il Socialismo e Mazzini, ed. cit., p. 9).

In the year 1906 the total funds of the German trade unions amounted to about 16,000,000 marks. The richest union, that of the compositors, had accumulated funds amounting to 4,374,013 marks. Next came the bricklayers' union, with 2,091,681 marks; the metal-workers' union, with 1,543,352 marks; and the woodworkers' union, with 1,452,215 marks (Karl Kautsky, Der neue Tarif der Buchdrucker, “Neue Zeit,” anno xxv, vol. 1, No. 4, p. 129). Since then, notwithstanding the intervening years of crisis involving exceptionally high claims for out-of-work pay, the financial position of the unions has become yet stronger. In 1909 the compositors owned 7,929,257 marks; the bricklayers, 6,364,647 marks; the metalworkers, 6,248,251 marks; the woodworkers, 3,434,314 marks (Statistisches Jahrbuch füir das deutsche Reich, 1910, anno xxxi, pp. 376-7). These ample funds are of great importance for defensive purposes, but their value for offensive purposes is extremely restricted. It would be utterly absurd for the union to pursue the policy of heaping up funds in the hope of thus overthrowing capitalism. In Germany there are hundreds of capitalists in whose private treasuries are available means exceeding those of all the unions put together. Moreover, on the present system of depositing savings with private banks, the earnings of this accumulated capital yield profit, not to the trade unionist, but to the enemies of the working class who are shareholders in these banks, so that the trade-union funds are “ultimately employed against the labour movement” (Bruno Buchwald, Die Gewerkschaftsbank, “Die neue Gesellschaft.” anno iii, fasc. x). Hence the trade-union funds help to strengthen the opponents of the trade unions. For this reason a scheme has long been on foot among trade unionists to institute a bank of their own.

Friedrich Naumann, Das Schicksal des Marxismus, “Hilfe,” October 11, 1908, p. 657.

Karl Kautsky, Preface to Karl Marx, Ranciglossen zum Progromm der deutschen Arbeiterparlei (1875), “Neue Zeit,” anno ix, vol. 1, pp. 568 et seq.

Trans. from Guy de Maupassant, Mademoiselle Fifi, Libr. Ollendorff, Paris, 1907, p. 69.