| Author(s) | Friedrich Engels |
|---|---|
| Written | 1874 |
Engels' third article in the Refugee Literature series was written in late July-September 1874 in connection with the publication, in a journal entitled Vperyod! (Forward!), of Pyotr Lavrov's article «A Chronicle of the Labour Movement», and his polemic with the Russian revolutionary Pyotr Tkachov. Engels considers the following pamphlets: «The Tasks of Revolutionary Propaganda in Russia. A Letter to the Editor of the Forward! Magazine», and «To the Russian Social-Revolutionary Youth. Apropos of the Pamphlet: The Tasks of Revolutionary Propaganda in Russia».
Engels' article was printed in Der Volksstaat, Nos. 117 and 118, October 6 and 8, 1874. Italicisation in the quotations is by Engels. He does not always observe the authors' italics. This article is published in English for the first time.
The readers of the Volksstaat have suffered a misfortune. Some of them may still remember that, in my last article on "refugee literature" (Nos. 117 and 118),[1] I dealt with some passages from the Russian periodical Forward and a pamphlet by its editor.[2] Quite by chance I happened to mention a Mr. Peter Tkachov, who has published a little pamphlet attacking the aforementioned editor,[3] and with whom I had only concerned myself as little as was absolutely necessary. I described him, to judge by the form and content of his immortal work, "as a green grammar-school boy of singular immaturity, the Karlchen Missnick, as it were, of Russian revolutionary youth"[4] and pitied the editor of the Forward for deeming it necessary to bandy words with such an adversary. I was soon to learn, however, that the boy Karl is beginning to get cross with me[5] and entangling me, too, in polemics with him. He publishes a pamphlet: Offener Brief an Herrn Friedrich Engels, by Peter Tkachov, Zurich, typography by Tagwacht, 1874. The fact that, in it, I have all sorts of things foisted on to me that Mr. Tkachov must know I have never maintained would be a matter of indifference to me; but the fact that he gives the German workers quite a false picture of the situation in Russia, in order to justify the activities of the Bakuninists in relation to Russia, makes a reply necessary.
In his open letter, Mr. Tkachov consistently sets himself up as a representative of Russian revolutionary youth. He maintains that I "dispensed advice to the Russian revolutionaries ... urging them to enter into an alliance with me (!)";[6] at the same time I had depicted them, "the representatives of the Russian revolutionary party abroad", their efforts and their literature in the "most unfavourable colours to the German labour world"; he says: "You express your utter contempt for us Russians because we are so 'stupid' and 'immature', etc. "...green grammar-school boys", as you please to call us"—and finally there follows the inevitable trump-card: "By mocking us you have done our common enemy, the Russian state, a valuable service." I have subjected him, Mr. Tkachov claims, "to every conceivable kind of abuse".[7]
Now, nobody knows better than Peter Nikitich Tkachov that there is not a single grain of truth in all this. First, in the article in question, I held no one responsible for Mr. Tkachov's utterances other than Mr. Tkachov himself. It never occurred to me to see him as a representative of the Russian revolutionaries. If he appoints himself as such, thereby transferring the green grammar-school boy and other pleasantries from his shoulders on to theirs, then I must definitely protest. Among Russian revolutionary youth there are, of course, as everywhere, people of widely differing moral and intellectual calibre. Yet its general level, even after taking full account of the time difference and the essentially different milieu, is undoubtedly still far higher than our German student youth has ever attained, even during its best period in the early 1830s. Nobody but Mr. Tkachov himself gives him the right to speak on behalf of these young people in their entirety. Indeed, even though he reveals himself as a true Bakuninist on this occasion, I nevertheless doubt at the moment whether he has the right to conduct himself as the representative of the small number of Russian Bakuninists whom I described as "a few immature little students, who inflate themselves with big words like frogs, and finally gobble one another up". But even if this were the case, it would only be a new version of the old story of the three tailors of Tooley Street in London, who issued a proclamation that started, "We, the people of England, declare"[8] etc.* Thus, the main point that needs to be made is that the "Russian revolutionaries" do not come into it, now any more than before, and that for Tkachov's "we" it is necessary to substitute "I", throughout.
I am supposed to have given him "advice". I haven't the faintest idea what he is talking about. I may have let fly a few blows, Peter Nikititch, but advice? Be so kind as to furnish proof.
At the end of my last article, I am supposed to have urged him or his ilk to enter into an alliance with me. I will pay Mr. Tkachov ten marks in Bismarck's coin of the realm[9] if he can demonstrate that.
I am supposed to have maintained that he is "stupid", and he puts the word in quotation marks. Although I would not deny that he has hidden his talents—if that is the appropriate word here—under a bushel of considerable size in both these works, it is open to anyone to ascertain that the word "stupid" does not occur once anywhere in my article. But if all else fails, the Bakuninists resort to bogus quotations.
Further, I am supposed to have "mocked" him and portrayed him in a "ridiculous light". Granted, Mr. Tkachov will never be able to force me to take his pamphlet seriously. We Germans are widely reputed to be boring, and must have richly deserved this reputation on many an occasion. That does not, however, oblige us in all circumstances to be as boring and pompous as the Bakuninists. The German labour movement has acquired a singularly humorous character from its skirmishes with police, state prosecutors and prison-warders; why should I deny it? Mr. Tkachov has full permission to mock me and depict me in a ridiculous light, if he can manage it without imputing any lies to me.
Now the incomparable accusation: by portraying Mr. Tkachov in a light befitting him and his works, we have "done our common enemy, the Russian state, a valuable service"![10] Similarly, he says at another point: by describing him as I have, I am breaching "the basic principles of the programme of the International Working Men's Association"![11] Here we see the true Bakuninist. These gentlemen, as true revolutionaries, shun no means against us, particularly in the dark; but if one fails to treat them with the greatest respect, if one drags their antics into the light, criticises them and their ringing phrases, then one is serving the Tsar of Russia and breaching the basic principles of the International. Precisely the opposite is the case, in fact. The one who has done
But stay! Make literary propaganda! But have we the right to wait, have we the right to waste time on literary propaganda? After all, every minute, every hour the revolution is delayed costs the people a thousand victims (p. 14)![12] Now is no time for literary propaganda: the revolution must be carried out now, or perhaps never—we permit no hesitation, no delay. And we are supposed to make literary propaganda! Oh God, how can a living human being say such a thing to another human being, and this human being's name is Peter Tkachov!
Was I wrong when I described these impetuous rodomontades, now so basely denied, as "childish"? They are so childish that one would think the writer had gone as far as was humanly possible in this respect. And yet he has since surpassed himself. The editor of the Forward quotes a passage from a proclamation to the Russian peasants, penned by Mr. Tkachov. In it Mr. Tkachov describes the state of affairs after a completed social revolution as follows:
And then the peasant would embark on a merry life with song and music ... his pockets would be full, not of coppers but of gold ducats. He would have all kinds of beasts and poultry in the farmyard, as many as he desired. On the table he would have every kind of meat, and festive cakes, and sweet wines, and the table would be laid from morn to night. And he would eat and drink as much as his belly would hold, but he would work no more than he had a mind to. And there would be no one who dared to force him: go, eat!—go, lie down on the stove!
And the person capable of perpetrating this proclamation complains when I confine myself to calling him a green grammar-school boy of rare immaturity!
Mr. Tkachov continues:
Why do you reproach us with conspiracies? If we were to renounce conspiratorial, secret, underground activities, we would have to renounce all revolutionary activity. But you also castigate us for not wanting to depart from our conspiratorial ways here in the European West and thus disturbing the great international labour movement.
First, it is untrue that the Russian revolutionaries have no other means at their disposal than pure conspiracy. Mr. Tkachov himself has just stressed the importance of literary propaganda, from abroad into Russia! Even within Russia oral propaganda among the people themselves, particularly in the cities, can never be quite excluded as a method, whatever Mr. Tkachov may find it in his interest to say about it. The best proof of this is that, in the latest mass arrests in Russia, it was not the educated nor the students, but the workers who were in the majority.
Second, I undertake to fly to the moon, even before Tkachov liberates Russia, as soon as he proves that I have ever, anywhere, at any time in my political career, declared that conspiracies were to be universally condemned in all circumstances. I undertake to bring him back a souvenir from the moon as soon as he proves that any other plots are mentioned in my article but the one against the International by the Alliance. Indeed, if only the Russian Bakuninists really were to conspire seriously against the Russian Government! If only, instead of fraudulent conspiracies based on lies and deceit against their co-conspirators, like that of Nechayev,[13] this "typical representative of our present-day youth" according to Tkachov,[14] instead of plots against the European labour movement like the Alliance, fortunately exposed and thus destroyed—if only they, the "doers" (dejateli), as they boastfully call themselves, would at last, for once, perform a deed proving that they really possess an organisation and that they are concerned with something else apart from the attempt to form a dozen! Instead, they cry out loud to all and sundry: We conspire, we conspire!—just like operatic conspirators roaring in four parts: "Silence, silence! Make not a sound!"[15] And all the tales about far-reaching conspiracies only serve as a cloak to hide nothing more than revolutionary inactivity vis-à-vis governments and ambitious cliquishness within the revolutionary party.
It is precisely our ruthless exposure of this entire fraud in the Komplott gegen die Internationale that causes these gentlemen to wax so indignant. It was "tactless". In exposing Mr. Bakunin we were seeking "to besmirch one of the greatest and most selfless representatives of the revolutionary epoch in which we live", and with "dirt", at that. The dirt that came to light on this occasion was, to the very last particle, of Mr. Bakunin's own making, and not his worst by any means. The pamphlet in question made him out to be far cleaner than he really was. We simply quoted § 18 of the "Revolutionary Catechism", the article stipulating how to behave vis-à-vis the Russian aristocracy and bourgeoisie, how "to seize hold of their dirty secrets and thereby make them our slaves, so that their wealth, etc., becomes an inexhaustible treasure and a valuable support in all kinds of undertaking".[16] We have not yet
It thus turns out that all the accusations Mr. Tkachov has made against me, with that virtuous mien of injured innocence that becomes all Bakuninists so well, are all based on claims he not only knew to be false, but were also a pack of lies that he himself had concocted. Whereupon we take our leave of the personal part of his "Open Letter".