FREDERICK ENGELS
THE ABDICATION OF THE BOURGEOISIE
Of the national bourgeoisie in
the various countries, it is the English that has undoubtedly
up  to now  preserved a keener class sense, that is, political
sense, than any other. Our  German bourgeoisie is stupid
and cowardly; it has not  even been able to seize and hold
the political power  the working  class won  for it in 1848; in
Germany  the working  class must  first sweep  away the remnants of feudalism and of patriarchal absolutism, which our
bourgeoisie should have eradicated long  ago. The French
bourgeoisie, the most  mercenary and pleasure-seeking of
all, is blinded to its future interests by  its own  avarice; it
lives only  the day; in its frenzied thirst for profits it falls
into the most  scandalous corruption, declares that income
tax is socialist high treason, can find no  way of countering
any strike but  with infantry salvoes, and thus brings  it about
that in a republic in which there is universal suffrage revolution by  means of force is about the only  means of victory
left to the workers. The English bourgeoisie is neither as
greedily stupid as the French, nor  as pusillanimously stupid
as the German. During  the period of its greatest triumphs
it has constantly made concessions to the workers; even the
most  narrow-minded part of it, the conservative landed and
finance aristocracy, did not  hesitate to give the urban work ers suffrage on  such a scale that it is purely the fault of the
workers  themselves that since 1868 they have not  had 40 to

50 representatives of their own  in Parliament. And since
then the entire bourgeoisie— the Conservatives and the Lib erals combined— has extended this wider suffrage to the
counties as well, as roughly  adjusted the size of the wards
and thereby placed at least another thirty wards at the disposal of the working  class. Whereas the German bourgeoi sie has never had the ability to lead and represent the nation
as its ruling class, whereas the French proves  day in day
out — and at the present elections again213— that it has com pletely lost this ability— and yet there was a time when  it
possessed that ability to a higher degree than any other
middle class— the English bourgeoisie (in which the so-called
aristocracy has been absorbed and assimilated) exhibited
until recently a certain talent for upholding its position as
leading class at least to some  degree.
This now  seems to be changing more  and more.
Everything connected with the old government  of the
City  of London — the constitution and the administration of
the City  proper — is still downright  medieval. And this
includes also the Port of London,  the leading port  in the
world. The wharfingers, the lightermen and the watermen
form regular guilds with exclusive privileges and partly still
don medieval costumes. These antiquated guild privileges
have in the past seventy years been crowned with the mo nopoly  of the dock companies, and thereby the whole  huge
Port of London  has been delivered up  to a small number  of
privileged corporations for ruthless exploitation. And this
whole  privileged monstrosity  is being perpetuated and, as
it were, made inviolable through  an endless series of intricate and contradictory Acts of Parliament, through  which it
was born  and raised, so  that this legal labyrinth has become
its best rampart. But  while these corporations presume  upon
their medieval privileges in dealing with the commercial
public and make London  the most  expensive port  in the
world, their members  have become regular bourgeois,  who
besides fleecing their customers, exploit their workers  in the
vilest manner and thus profit simultaneously from the advantages of medieval guild and modern  capitalist society.
Since, however,  this exploitation took  place within the
framework of modern  capitalist society, it was, despite its

medieval frippery, subject to the laws of that society. The
big swallowed the small or at least chained them to their
triumphal chariot. The big dock companies became the
masters of the guilds of the wharfingers, the lightermen and
the watermen and thereby of the whole London  port, thus
opening  up  the prospect of unlimited profits for themselves.
This prospect blinded them. They threw millions out  of the
window  by  building stupid installations; and since there
were several such companies, they engaged in a competitive
war, which took  further millions, led to the building of new
senseless structures and pushed the companies to the brink
of bankruptcy, until, finally, they came to terms two  years
ago.
In the meantime London  trade had passed its peak.
Havre, Antwerp,  Hamburg  and, since the new  sea canal was
built, also Amsterdam, drew a growing  share of the traffic
that had formerly come to London. Liverpool, Hull and
Glasgow  also took  their share. The newly  built docks stayed
empty,  dividends dwindled and partly disappeared
altogether, shares dropped, and the dock directors, arrogant,
purse-proud snobs,  stubborn  and spoilt by  the good  old times,
were at their wits ’ end. They did not  want to admit the true
reasons for the relative and absolute decline in the traffic
of the Port of London. And  these reasons, insofar as they
are of a local character, are only  their own  arrogant perversity and its cause, the privileged position, the medieval,
long-since outlived Constitution  of the City  and Port of
London,  which by  all right should be in the British Museum,
next to the Egyptian mummies  and the Assyrian stone
monsters.
Nowhere  else in the world would  such folly be tolerated.
In Liverpool, where similar conditions were shaping, they
were nipped in the bud and the entire port  constitution was
modernised. But  in London  trade suffers because of it, while
trade circles grumble  and— help it happen. The bourgeoisie,
most  of whom  have to pay the costs of this absurdity, submit
to this monopoly,  even if unwillingly, but  submit  just the
same. They no  longer have the energy to shake off this bur den that in time threatens to stifle the living conditions of
all of London.

Then the dock workers ’ strike breaks out. It is not  the
bourgeoisie being robbed by  the dock companies that rebels,
it is the workers  exploited by  them, the poorest  of the poor,
the lowest layer of the East End proletarians, who  fling
down  the gauntlet to the dock magnates. And  then, at last,
the bourgeoisie realise that they too  have an enemy  in the
dock magnates, that the striking workers  have taken up  the
struggle not  only  in their own  interests, but  indirectly also
in the interests of the bourgeois  class. That is the secret of
the public sympathy  for the strike and of the unprecedentedly generous  money  contributions from bourgeois  circles.
But  thus far and no  further. The workers  went  into action
to the accompaniment of acclamation and applause from
the bourgeoisie; the workers  fought the battle to the end
and proved not  only  that the proud  dock magnates can be
defeated but  by  their struggle and victory also stirred up
public opinion  to such an extent that the dock monopoly
and the feudal Port Constitution  are no  longer tenable and
will soon  really have to move  to the British Museum.
This job  should have been done by  the bourgeoisie long
ago. It was unable or unwilling to do it. Now  the workers
have taken it in hand and now  it will be done. In other
words,  in this case the bourgeoisie has renounced its own
part in favour of the workers.
Now  a different picture. From  the medieval Port of Lon don we  move  on  to the modern  cotton spinneries of Lancashire. At  the moment  the cotton harvest of 1888 is exhausted
and that of 1889  has not  yet been placed on  the market,
that is, the speculation in raw materials has at present the
best prospects. A  rich Dutchman named Steenstrand has,
with other accomplices, formed a “ring” to buy  up  all the
available cotton and to hoist prices. The cotton spinners can
retaliate only  by  curtailing consumption,  that is, by  shutting
down  their mills for several or  all days a week, until the new
cotton is in sight. This they have been trying to do for six
weeks. But  now  as before it refuses to work. This is because
many of the spinners are so  heavily indebted that a partial
or complete standstill would  push  them to the brink of ruin.
Others even want the majority to stop  and thereby to boost
the price of cotton yarn; while they themselves intend to

continue operating and to profit from the higher yarn
prices. More  than ten years’ experience has shown  that there
is only  one  way to enforce a shut-down  of all cotton mills—
no  matter for what ultimate purpose — namely, by  introducing a wage cut of, say, 5 per cent. Then there is a strike, or
a lockout by  the mill-owners themselves, and then, in the
struggle against the workers,  there inevitably is unity  among
the mill-owners, and the mills are shut down  even by  those
who  do not  know  whether they will ever be able to set them
going  again.
As  things stand, a wage cut is not  advisable today. But
how  otherwise can a general closure of the mills be brought
about, without  which the spinners will for about six weeks
be delivered, bound  hand and foot, to the speculators? By  a
step which is unique  in the history of modern  industry.
The mill-owners, through  their central committee, “semiofficially” approach the Central Committee  of the Workers ’
Trade Unions  with the request that the organised workers
should, in the common  interest, force the obstinate millowners  to shut down  by  organising strikes. Messrs,  millowners,  admitting their own  inability to take concerted action, ask the formerly so  much  hated workers ’ trade unions,
kindly to use coercion against them, the mill-owners, so  that
the mill-owners, induced by  bitter necessity, should finally
act in concert, as a class, in the interests of their own  class.
They have to be forced to do so  by  the workers,  for they
themselves are unable to bring  this about!
The workers  consented. And the threat of the workers
alone sufficed. In 24 hours  the “ring” of the cotton speculators was smashed. This shows  what can be done by  the millowners,  and what can be done by  the workers.
Thus, here too, in the most  modern  of all modern  large-
scale industries, the bourgeoisie proves  to be as incapable
of defending its own  class interests, as it is in medieval
London. And  what is more, it frankly admits it, and by
turning  to the organised workers  with the request that they
should defend a major class interest of the mill-owners by
resorting to coercion against the mill-owners themselves, it
not  only  abdicates, but  recognises in the organised working
class its successor, who  is called upon  to rule and is quite

capable of doing so. It proclaims itself that now  while every
single mill-owner is able to manage his own  mill, it is only
and solely the organised workers  who  are now  able to take
the management of the entire cotton industry into their
own  hands. And  this means, in plain German, that the only
occupation left to the mill-owners is to become paid business
managers in the service of the organised workers.
Written between the end
of September and the beginning
of October 1889
Published in Der Sozialdemokrat Translated from the German
No.  40, October 5, 1889
Signed: F. Engels