Apart from the fact that the following essays were all written for
the Volksstaat, they have in common that they all deal with
international matters outside Germany.

The first: “Once Again ‘Herr Vogt’” constitutes the conclusion
of the polemic on the Italian War*™ carried out in 1859-60
between this false natural scientist and Republican, but genuine
vulgar-liberal Bonapartist and book manufacturer and Marx. This
essay stamped the said Mr. Vogt once and for all with the
character of a paid Bonapartist agent, for which Marx, in his Herr
Vogt in 1860 could obviously only supply indirect evidence.

The second essay: The Bakuninists at Work, which describes the
action of the anarchists during the rising in Spain in July 1873,
appeared earlier as a separate pamphlet. Even though the
anarchist caricature of the workers’ movement has long passed its
climax, the governments in Europe and America are much too
interested in its continued existence, and spend much too much
money on supporting it, for us to omit any consideration of the
heroic deeds of the anarchists. The article is therefore reprinted
again here.

“A Polish Proclamation” deals with an aspect of Germany’s
relations with Eastern Europe which is often overlooked today, but
which must not be neglected if these relations are to be assessed
correctly.

The critique of the “Programme of the Blanquist Commune
Refugees” of 1874 is of special interest today again, now that,
apart from the other socialist groups, a small group of Blanquists
have entered the French Chamber of Deputies, with our friend
Vaillant at their head.” Since their return to France in 1880, the Blanquists have once intervened decisively in events—namely
in 1887, the day of the last presidential election following Grévy’s
abdication. The majority in the National Assembly favoured Jules
Ferry, one of the most infamous of all the infamous suppressors
of the Commune, and one of the most consummate representatives of that opportunist bourgeoisie which only wants to rule
France in order to bleed it and its colonies white. At that time
preparations were underway for an uprising in Paris which was to
be headed by the Paris municipal council with the agreement of
the radical deputies; the military organisation, however, was in the
hands of the Blanquists, who provided the officers’ corps, and
whose military leader, General of the Commune Eudes, took over
command and established his general staff office in a café next to
the Hotel de Ville. Faced with the threat of this uprising, the
opportunists gave in and elected Carnot.

And recently too, when the Russian naval guests were in Paris,
Le Parti socialiste, the Blanquist weekly, distinguished itself by a
courageous stand, defying all chauvinist prejudices. This stand
gives us the guarantee that the Blanquist group in the Chamber
under Vaillant’s leadership will do its utmost for the cooperation
of all the socialist groups and their association in a strong socialist
coalition party.

It will be noted that in all these essays, and particularly in the
aforementioned one, I consistently do not call myself a Social
Democrat, but a Communist. This is because at that time in
various countries people called themselves Social Democrats who
had certainly not inscribed upon their banners the taking over by
society of all the means of ‘production. In France, a Social
Democrat was conceived as a democratic republican with more or
less genuine but always indefinable sympathies for the working
class, that is people like Ledru-Rollin in 1848, and the Proudhonist-tinged “radical socialists” of 1874. In Germany, the Lassalleans
called themselves Social Democrats; but although the mass of them
increasingly appreciated the necessity of socialising the means of
production, the specifically Lassallean production cooperatives
with state aid nevertheless remained the only publicly recognised
item on their agenda. For Marx and myself it was therefore quite
impossible to choose a name of such elasticity to describe our
special standpoint. Today the situation is different, and the word
can be allowed to pass, unfitting as it remains for a party whose
economic programme is not just generally socialist, but directly
communist, and whose ultimate political aim is to surpass the
entire State, and thus democracy too. The names of real political parties never fit exactly; the party develops, but the name
stays.

The last essay “On Social Relations in Russia’, which also
appeared in 1875 in a special edition as a pamphlet, could not
possibly be reprinted again without a more or less comprehensive
epilogue.* The question of the future of the Russian peasant
communities occupies more than ever all Russians who are
concerned about the economic development of their country. The
letter from Marx which I quoted” has been given the most diverse
interpretations by the Russian socialists. More recently, too,
Russians at home and abroad have repeatedly urged me to express
my opinion on this question. I baulked at this for a long time, well
knowing how insufficient is my knowledge of the details of the
economic situation of Russia: how was I to complete the third
volume of Capital and in addition study the truly colossal mound
of literature in which old Russia, as Marx liked to say, took
inventory before its death? Well now, a reprint of “On Social
Relations in Russia” is urgently requested, and this circumstance
forces me to undertake the attempt, in expansion of this old essay,
to draw some conclusions from the historical-comparative enquiry
into the economic position of Russia today. These conclusions may
not have turned out unreservedly in favour of a great future for
the Russian communities, but on the other hand they seek to
substantiate the view that the approaching dissolution of capitalist
society in the West will put Russia too in a position significantly to
shorten its passage through capitalism which is now becoming
inevitable.

London, January 3, 1894

F. Engels