The year 1894. The Peasant Question. "On the continent," writes Engels on November 10, 1894, "as the movement grows, the striving for even greater successes increases, and the hunt for peasants, in the literal sense of the word, becomes fashionable. First the French, through the mouth of Lafargue, declared in Nantes that not only is it not our business to hasten the ruin of the petty peasantry—capitalism will take care of that for us—but that we must actually defend the peasant against the fisc, usurers, and large landowners. But we simply cannot agree with this, because, first, it is stupid, and second, it is impossible. Following this, Vollmar appears in Frankfurt, who generally intends to bribe the peasants, and the peasant he deals with in Upper Bavaria is not the impoverished petty peasant weighed down by debt, but the middle and independent substantial farmer, who exploits hired workers and trades in cattle and grain. And this cannot be agreed with without renouncing all principles"{130}.

December 4, 1894: "...The Bavarians have become very and very opportunistic and transformed themselves almost into a simple people's party (I am speaking of the majority of leaders and of many newcomers who have entered the party); in the Bavarian diet they voted for the budget as a whole, and especially Vollmar organized agitation among the peasants with the aim of attracting not farm laborers, but Upper Bavarian large farmers—people owning 25–80 acres of land (10–30 hectares), that is, people who absolutely cannot do without hired workers..."{131}.

From this we see that over more than ten years, Marx and Engels systematically, unflinchingly fought opportunism in the German social-democratic party and pursued intellectual philistinism and petty-bourgeois mediocrity in socialism. This is an extremely important fact. The general public knows that German social-democracy is considered the model of Marxist policy and the tactics of the proletariat, but does not know what constant warfare the founders of Marxism had to wage against the "right wing" (Engels's expression) of this party. That shortly after Engels's death this war emerged from secrecy into the open is not accidental. It is the inevitable result of decades of historical development of German social-democracy.

And now before us two lines of Engels's (and Marx's) counsels, instructions, corrections, threats, and moral lessons stand out with special clarity. Anglo-American socialists they urged most persistently to merge with the workers' movement, to eliminate from their organizations the narrow and ossified sectarian spirit. German social-democrats they taught most persistently: do not fall into philistinism, into "parliamentary idiocy" (Marx's expression in a letter of September 19, 1879){132}, into petty-bourgeois intellectual opportunism.

Is it not characteristic that our social-democratic gossips chattered on about the counsels of the first kind and pursed their lips, passing over in silence the counsels of the second kind? Is not such one-sidedness in the assessment of the letters of Marx and Engels the best indication of a certain one-sidedness in our Russian social-democratic...? 

At present, when the international workers' movement is displaying symptoms of deep ferment and wavering, when the extremes of opportunism, "parliamentary idiocy," and petty-bourgeois reformism have provoked opposite extremes of revolutionary syndicalism—at present the general line of Marx and Engels's "corrections" to Anglo-American and German socialism acquires exceptional importance.

In such countries where there is no social-democratic workers' party, no social-democratic deputies in parliaments, no systematic and consistent social-democratic policy either in elections, or in the press, etc.—in such countries Marx and Engels taught socialists to break out of narrow sectarianism by all means and to attach themselves to the workers' movement, in order to give political impetus to the proletariat. For neither in England nor in America did the proletariat in the last third of the nineteenth century display almost any political independence. The political arena in these countries—in the almost absolute absence of bourgeois-democratic historical tasks—was entirely filled with triumphant, self-satisfied bourgeoisie, which in the art of deceiving, corrupting, and bribing workers has no equal in the world.

To think that these counsels of Marx and Engels addressed to Anglo-American workers' movement can simply and directly be applied to Russian conditions means using Marxism not to clarify its method, not to study the concrete historical peculiarities of the workers' movement in definite countries, but for petty factional, intellectual scores.

On the contrary, in such a country where the bourgeois-democratic revolution remained unfinished, where "military despotism dressed up in parliamentary forms" reigned and reigns (Marx's expression in his "Critique of the Gotha Programme"){133}, where the proletariat has long been drawn into politics and conducts social-democratic policy—in such a country Marx and Engels feared most of all parliamentary vulgarization, petty-bourgeois diminution of the tasks and scope of the workers' movement.

We are all the more obliged to emphasize and bring to the fore this side of Marxism in the epoch of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia, because here we have an extensive, "brilliant," rich liberal-bourgeois press that thousands of voices trumpet to the proletariat about the "exemplary" loyalty, parliamentary legality, modesty, and moderation of the neighboring German workers' movement.

This venal lie of the bourgeois traitors of the Russian revolution is caused not by accident and not by the personal corruption of some former or future ministers from the Cadet camp. It is caused by the profound economic interests of Russian liberal landowners and liberal bourgeois. And in the struggle against this lie, against this "stupefaction of the masses" ("Massenverdummung"—Engels's expression in a letter of November 29, 1886){134}, the letters of Marx and Engels must serve as an irreplaceable weapon for all Russian socialists.

The venal lie of the liberal bourgeois shows the people the exemplary "modesty" of German social-democrats. The leaders of these social-democrats, the founders of the theory of Marxism, tell us:

"The revolutionary intervention of the French exposed the hypocrisy of Firek and Co. (opportunists in the social-democratic Reichstag faction) in an even more unseemly light" (this refers to the formation of a workers' party in the French Chamber and the Decazeville strike, which split the French radicals from the French proletariat{135}). "In the latest socialist debates, only Liebknecht and Bebel appeared and both very successfully. With such debates we can again show ourselves in respectable society, which unfortunately was not always the case before. It is generally good that the Germans, especially after they sent such a large number of philistines to the Reichstag (which, however, was inevitable), are having their role as leaders of the international social movement contested. In quiet times in Germany everything becomes philistine, and at such moments the sting of French competition is absolutely necessary..." (letter of April 29, 1886){136}.

Such are the lessons that the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party, standing under the predominant ideological influence of German social-democracy, must assimilate most firmly.

These lessons are taught to us not by this or that isolated passage from the correspondence of the greatest men of the nineteenth century—but by the entire spirit and all the content of their comradely, direct, undiplomatic and free from petty calculations, criticism of the international experience of the proletariat.

How penetrated, truly, all the letters of Marx and Engels are by this spirit can be shown by the following passages, relatively particular it is true, but extremely characteristic{137}.

In 1889 a young, fresh, full of new, revolutionary spirit movement of untrained, unqualified, simple workers (gas workers, dockers, etc.) was beginning in England. Engels is enthusiastic about it. He emphasizes with triumph the role of Marx's daughter, "Tussy," who agitated among them. "The most repulsive thing here," he writes from London on December 7, 1889, "is the bourgeois 'respectability' that has soaked into the very flesh and blood of the workers. The social gradation of society into countless, universally recognized gradations, each of which has its own 'honor' and is imbued with an innate sense of respect for 'betters' and 'superiors,' is so ancient and so stable that it presents no great difficulty for the bourgeoisie to dupe the masses. I, for example, am far from certain that John Burns is proud in his soul more of his popularity among his class than of his popularity with Cardinal Manning, the Lord Mayor, and the bourgeoisie in general. And Champion—a retired lieutenant—conducted some dealings with bourgeois and, chiefly, conservative elements many years ago, and preached socialism at a clerical church assembly, etc. And even Tom Mann himself, whom I consider the best among them, even he likes to boast about how he will breakfast with the Lord Mayor. And only when you compare them with the French do you become convinced how beneficially revolution influences this respect"{138}.

Commentary is superfluous.

One more example. In 1891 there was danger of a European war. Engels corresponded about this with Bebel, and they agreed that in case of a Russian attack on Germany, German socialists would have to fight desperately both with the Russians and with any Russian allies. "If Germany is strangled, then we perish with her. In case of a favorable turn, the struggle will assume such a fierce character that Germany will be able to hold out only by revolutionary measures, which is why we may easily be forced to assume the helm of government and replay 1793" (letter of October 24, 1891){139}.

For the information of those opportunists who cried out to the whole world about the non-social-democratic nature of "Jacobin" perspectives for the Russian workers' party in 1905! Engels directly indicated to Bebel the possibility that social-democrats would have to participate in a provisional government.

It is entirely natural that with such views on the tasks of social-democratic workers' parties, Marx and Engels were full of the most rosy faith in the Russian revolution and its mighty worldwide significance. Over almost twenty years we see in this correspondence this passionate expectation of revolution in Russia.

Here is a letter from Marx of September 27, 1877. The Eastern crisis{140} evokes Marx's delight. "Russia has long been on the eve of great upheavals, and all the necessary elements for this have already matured. The explosion is hastened by many years, thanks to the blows dealt by the fine fellows, the Turks... The upheaval will begin secundum artem ("according to all the rules of the art") with constitutional flirtations, and there will be a fine rumpus (il y aura un beau tapage). And with the favor of Mother Nature, we shall live to see this triumph"{141}. (Marx was then 59 years old.)

Mother Nature did not grant him to live to "this triumph"—nor could she have, perhaps. But the "constitutional flirtations" he predicted, and his words seem as if written yesterday about the first and second Russian Duma. And yet the warning to the people about "constitutional flirtations" constituted the very soul of the boycott tactic so hated by liberals and opportunists...

Here is a letter from Marx of November 5, 1880. He rejoices at the success of "Capital" in Russia{142} and takes the side of the Narodniks against the newly emerged group of Black Repartitionists{143}. The anarchic elements in their views are correctly grasped by Marx, and—not knowing and having no possibility of knowing at that time about the future evolution of the Black Repartitionists-Narodniks into social-democrats—Marx attacks the Black Repartitionists with all the force of his scathing sarcasm:

"These gentlemen are against any political revolutionary action. Russia, in their opinion, should make a leap straight into the anarchist-communist-atheist millennium. Meanwhile, they are preparing this leap with the most tedious doctrinarianism. The so-called principles of their doctrines are taken from the late Bakunin"{144}.

From this one can see how Marx would have assessed for Russia in 1905 and the following years the importance of "political-revolutionary action" by social-democracy.

Here is a letter from Engels of April 6, 1887: "Meanwhile, it seems a crisis is impending in Russia. The latest attempts have caused great confusion...". Letter of April 9, 1887—the same thing... "The army is full of discontented conspiring officers" (Engels was then under the impression of the Narodnik revolutionary struggle, placing hopes on officers and not yet seeing the revolutionarity of the Russian soldier and sailor revealed so brilliantly 18 years later...). "...I do not think the present state of affairs will last even another year. And when revolution flares up in Russia ("losgeht"), then hurrah!"{145}.

Letter of April 23, 1887: "In Germany persecutions (of socialists) follow persecutions. Bismarck, it seems, wants to prepare everything so that at the moment when revolution flares up in Russia, a matter of several months, Germany could immediately follow its example" ("losgeschlagen werden"){146}.

Those months turned out to be very and very long. There is no doubt that philistines will be found who, frowning, wrinkling their brows, will sharply condemn Engels's "revolutionarism" or condescendingly laugh at the old utopias of an old revolutionary emigrant.

Yes, Marx and Engels often erred and erred in determining how imminent revolution was, in hopes for revolutionary victory (for example, in Germany in 1848), in belief in the nearness of German "republic" ("die for the republic," Engels wrote about that epoch, recalling his mood as a participant in a military campaign for the imperial constitution—1848–1849{147}). They erred in 1871, when they were occupied with "raising southern France, for which they (Becker writes: "we" about himself and closest friends: letter no. 14 of July 21, 1871) sacrificed and risked everything in the power of man...". In the same letter: "If we had more money in March and April, we would have raised all southern France and saved the Paris Commune" (p. 29). But such errors of giants of revolutionary thought, who raised and have raised the proletariat of the whole world above the level of petty, mundane, kopeck tasks—are a thousand times more noble, magnificent, and historically valuable, more truthful, than the vulgar wisdom of official liberalism, which sings, cries out, appeals, and proclaims about the vanity of revolutionary vanities, about the futility of revolutionary struggle, about the charms of counter-revolutionary "constitutional" nonsense...

The Russian working class will win freedom for itself and give Europe a push forward with its error-filled revolutionary actions—and let the vulgarians boast of the flawlessness of their revolutionary inaction.

April 6, 1907