| Author(s) | Friedrich Engels |
|---|---|
| Written | 4 September 1892 |
Dear Baron,
Ede wants to know when I shall be back in London, but instead of giving me his address he merely states that he has left Kilchberg and is en route to Zurich; moreover, all the times he gives are so vague as to make it quite impossible to correspond with him at this range. As I imagine that you are better informed than I am, perhaps you would tell him that I return to London the day after tomorrow, the 6th.[1]
My lameness still rules out any possibility of my travelling further than that. In London I shall probably have to spend another two weeks lying on the sofa, but otherwise the thing is of no significance.
Sorge's article on Homestead naturally takes precedence. Come to that, I am in no great hurry provided the German text appears at the same time as the English one or a little later.[2] Needless to say I have heard nothing about the latter for the past two months.
Had you been here during the last election,[3] you would have spoken differently about the FABIANS.[4] As regards our tactics we have one firm rule for all modern countries and for all times and that is to prevail upon the workers to form their own independent party in opposition to all bourgeois parties. At the last election the English workers, impelled by the course of events, took, if still only instinctively, their first decisive step in this direction; that step proved surprisingly successful and contributed more towards the development of the workers' minds than any other event of the past 20 years. And what did the FABIANS do — not this or that individual but the FABIAN SOCIETY as a whole? It preached and practised the affiliation of the workers to the Liberals, the result being what one might expect. The Liberals assigned them four seats, none of which could possibly have been won and the Fabian candidates met with a resounding defeat. That paradoxical man of letters, Shaw — extremely talented and witty as a writer but utterly useless as an economist and politician, though an honourable man nevertheless and no careerist — wrote to Bebel saying that if they didn't pursue this policy of imposing their candidates upon the Liberals, they would reap nothing but defeat and disgrace (as though defeat was not often more honourable than victory) — and now, having pursued this policy, they have reaped both.
That is the crux of the whole matter. Now that, for the first time, the workers are taking an independent stand, the FABIAN SOCIETY is urging them to remain an appendage of the Liberals. And this must be made abundantly clear to the continental Socialists; to push it up would be to connive at it. And that is why I am sorry that the Avelings' postscript should have failed to appear.[5] It was not written post festum,[6] not as an afterthought, but was overlooked in the hurry to get the article off. The article is incomplete without the description of the attitude of the two Socialist organisations[7] in regard to the elections — and the readers of the Neue Zeit have a right to hear about this.
I believe that I myself told you in my last letter that both in the SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC FEDERATION[8] and in the FABIAN SOCIETY the provincial members are better than the central body. But that won't do any good so long as the attitude of the central body determines that of the Society. As to the rest of those sterling fellows, I know none of them apart from Banner. Since joining the FABIAN SOCIETY Banner has not, oddly enough, put in an appearance at my house. I imagine he was impelled by disgust at the SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC FEDERATION and the need for some kind of organisation — perhaps also by a few illusions. But this particular swallow doesn't make a summer.
You feel that there is something half-baked about the FABIAN SOCIETY. On the contrary, the chaps are only too well done, a clique of middle class 'socialists' of varying calibre from the careerist to the sentimental socialist and the philanthropist, who are united only in their fear of impending Labour rule and are moving heaven and earth to avert this threat by consolidating their own leadership — the leadership of the 'heddicated'.[9] If they then admit a working man or two to their central executive, thereby enabling the latter to perform an Albert owrier[10] of 1848 act in the shape of a constantly outvoted minority, that ought to deceive nobody.
The means employed by the FABIAN SOCIETY are indistinguishable from those employed in corrupt parliamentary politics: money, intrigue, careerism, i.e. after the English fashion where it is taken for granted that every political party (save only, it seems, in the case of Labour!) should pay its agents in one way or another or reward them with posts. These chaps are up to their eyes in the intrigues of the Liberal party and hold office in it, one such being Sydney Webb who is altogether a typical British politician. There is nothing one can tell the workers to beware of that these chaps are not already practising.
This is not to suggest, of course, that you should treat these people as enemies. But in my view they should no more be shielded from criticism than anyone else. And that is what the omission from the Avelings' article of the passage relating to them certainly looked like. But if you would like the Avelings to supply you with an article on the history and attitude of the various socialist organisations in England, you have only to say so and I shall suggest it to them.
I was very taken with your article on Vollmar;[11] it will do him more harm than any amount of wrangling in the Vorwärts.[12] Moreover, the endless threats of expulsion ought no longer to remain uncensured. Today they are wholly uncalled for reminders of the dictatorial period of the Anti-Socialist Law.[13] One must now give the rotten elements time to become so rotten that they defect virtually of their own accord. The discipline of a party numbered in millions is quite different from that of a sect numbered in hundreds. What you might have gone into a bit further is the way in which 'state socialism as such' necessarily turns in practice into fiscality, and this in the only land where it is practicable, namely Prussia (which you expound very nicely).
Ede's critique of Proudhon[14] was also very nice. I was especially glad to see that he is his old self again.
Your
F. E.
First published in Aus der Frühzeit des Marxismus. Engels Briefwechsel mit Kautsky, Prag, 1935
Printed according to the original
Published in English for the first time
Ryde, September 4, 1892 If you had been here during the last elections you would talk differently about the Fabians. In our tactics one thing is thoroughly established for all modern countries and times: to bring the workers to the point of forming their own party, independent and opposed to all bourgeois parties. During the last elections the English workers, for the first time and perhaps still only instinctively, pressed by the course of events, took a decided step in this direction; and this step has been surprisingly successful and has contributed more to the development of the minds of the workers than any other event of the last twenty years. And what did the Fabians do, not just this or that Fabian but the society as a whole? It preached and practised: affiliation of the workers to the Liberals, and what was to be expected happened: the Liberals assigned them four seats that it was impossible to win and the Fabian candidates conspicuously failed. The paradoxical belletrist Shaw — very talented and witty as a belletrist but absolutely useless as an economist and politician, although honest and not a careerist — wrote to Bebel that if they did not follow this policy of forcing their candidates on the Liberals they would reap nothing but defeat and disgrace (as if defeat were not often more honourable than victory) and now they have pursued their policy and have reaped both.
That is the crux of the whole matter. At a time when the workers for the first time come out independently the Fabian Society advises them to remain the tail of the Liberals. And the Socialists on the Continent must be told openly that to gloss this over would be to share the blame. That's why I was sorry that the final portion of Aveling's article did not appear. It was not post festum, not an afterthought. It had simply been overlooked in the rush to get the article off. The article is not complete without a description of the attitude of both socialist organisations towards the elections, and the readers of the Neue Zeit have a right to know about this.
I believe I told you myself in my last [letter] that both in the, S[ocial]-D[emocratic] F[ederation] and in the F[abian] S[ociety] the provincial members were better than the central body. But that is of no avail as long as the attitude of the central body determines that of the Society. I don't know any of the other fine chaps except Banner. Curiously enough Banner has never come to see me since he joined the F[abian] S[ociety]. I suppose his action was determined by his disgust with the S.D.F. and the need for some kind of organisation, perhaps also some illusions. But this one swallow makes no summer.
You see something unfinished in the F[abian] S[ociety]. On the contrary, this crowd is only too finished: a clique of bourgeois-Socialists of diverse calibres, from careerists to sentimental Socialists and philanthropists, united only by their fear of the threatening rule of the workers and doing all in their power to spike this danger by making their own leadership secure, the leadership exercised by the "eddicated." If afterwards they admit a few workers into their central board in order that they may play there the role of the worker Albert of 1848, the role of a constantly outvoted minority, this should not deceive anyone.
The means employed by the F[abian] S[ociety] are just the same as those of the corrupt parliamentary politicians: money, intrigues, careerism. That is, English careerism, according to which it is self-understood that every political party (only among the workers it is supposed to be different!) pays its agents in some way or other or rewards them with posts. These people are immersed up to their necks in the intrigues of the Liberal Party, hold Liberal Party jobs, as for instance Sidney Webb. who in general is a genuine British politician. These gentry do everything that the workers have to be warned against.
In spite of all this I do not ask you to treat these people as enemies. But in my opinion you should not shield them from criticism either, just as you don't shield anybody else. And that is precisely what the omission of the passages concerning them in the article by the Avelings looked like.[1] But if you would like the Avelings to give you an article on the history and attitude of the different English socialist organisations, you only have to say so and I'll propose it to them...
One must now give the rotten elements time to become so rotten that they defect virtually of their own accord. The discipline of a party numb4red in millions is quite different from that of a sect numbered in hundreds. ...