[In Socialism Utopian and Scientific the sentence: “Like every new theory, 
modern socialism had, at first, to connect itself with the intellectual stock-in-trade 
ready to its hand, however deeply its roots lay in economic facts” reads as 
follows:] 

Like every new theory, modern Socialism had, at first, to 
connect itself with the intellectual stock-in-trade ready to its hand, 
however deeply its roots lay in material economic facts. 

p. 16 

[The following note is supplied to the sentence: “It was the time when, as Hegel 
says, the world stood upon its head”.] 

This is the passage on the French Revolution: “Thought, the 
concept of law, all at once made itself felt, and against this the old 
scaffolding of wrong could make no stand. In this conception of 
law, therefore, a constitution has now been established, and 
henceforth everything must be based upon this. Since the sun had 
been in the firmament, and the planets circled round him, the 
sight had never been seen of man standing upon his head—z.e., 
on the Idea—and building reality after this image. Anaxagoras 
first said that the Nous, reason, rules the world; but now, for the 
first time, had man come to recognise that the Idea must rule the 

a The part and chapter references, the page references for the corresponding 
excerpts from this volume, and the explanations given in brackets, have been 
provided by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC CPSU.— Ed. 

Additions to the Text of Anti-Dihring 631 

mental reality. And this was a magnificent sunrise. All thinking 
Beings have participated in celebrating this holy day. A sublime 
emotion swayed men at that time, an enthusiasm of reason pervaded 
the world, as if now had come the reconciliation of the Divine 
Principle with the world” (Hegel, Philosophy of History, 1840, p. 535). 
Is it not high time to set the anti-Socialist law *“° in action against such 
teachings, subversive and to the common danger, by the late 

Professor Hegel? 

p. 19 

[The sentence: “Now, for the first time, appeared the light of day, henceforth 
superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, were to be superseded by eternal 
truth, eternal Right, equality based on nature and the inalienable rights of 
man”’—reads as follows:] 

Now, for the first time, appeared the light of day, the kingdom 
of reason; henceforth superstition, injustice, privilege, oppression, 
were to be superseded by eternal truth, eternal Right, equality 
based on Nature and the inalienable rights of man. 

p. 19 

[The sentence: “But, side by side with the antagonism of the feudal nobility 
and the burghers, was the general antagonism of exploiters and exploited, of rich 
idlers and poor workers”—reads as follows:] 

But, side by side with the antagonism of the feudal nobility and 
the burghers, who claimed to represent all the rest of society, was 
the general antagonism of exploiters and exploited, of rich idlers 
and poor workers. 

p. 19 

{The sentence: “For example, at the time of the German Reformation and the 
Peasant War, Thomas Münzer; in the great English Revolution, the Levellers; in 
the great French Revolution, Babeuf’—reads as follows:] 

For example, at the time of the German Reformation and the 
Peasants’ War, the Anabaptists **! and Thomas Münzer; in the great 
English Revolution, the Levellers; in the great French Revolution, 
Babeuf. 

632 Appendices 

pp. 19-20 

[The sentence: “A communism, ascetic, Spartan, was the first form of the new 
teaching”—reads as follows:] 

A Communism, ascetic, denouncing all the pleasures of life, 
Spartan, was the first form of the new teaching. 

p. 20 

(The sentence: “Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate 
a particular class, but all humanity”—reads as follows:] 

Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a 
particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once. 

p. 20 

[Instead of the sentence: “This mode of outlook is essentially that of all English 
and French and of the first German socialists, including Weitling”—the following is 
added:] 

The Utopians’ mode of thought has for a long time governed 
the socialist ideas of the nineteenth century, and still governs 
some of them. Until very recently all French and English Socialists 
did homage to it. The earlier German Communism, including that 
of Weitling, was of the same school. 

p. 21 

[The sentence: “When we consider and reflect upon nature at large or the 
history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an 
endless entanglement of relations and reactions in which nothing remains what, 
where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes 
away”—reads as follows:] 

When we consider and reflect upon Nature at large, or the 
history of mankind, or our own intellectual activity, at first we see 
the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, 
permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what, 
where, and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into 
being and passes away. We see, therefore, at first the picture as a 
whole, with its individual parts still more or less kept in the 
background; we observe the movements, transitions, connections, 
rather than the things that move, combine, and are connected. 

Additions to the Text of Anti-Dühring 633 

p. 22 

[After the sentence: “This is, primarily, the task of natural science and historical 
research: branches of science which the Greeks of classical times, on very good 
grounds, relegated to a subordinate position, because they had first of all to collect 
the material’”—the following was made:] 

A certain amount of natural and historical material must be 
collected before there can be any critical analysis, comparison, and 
arrangement in classes, orders, and species. 

pp. 23-24 

[The sentence: “Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for 
modern science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials increasing 
daily, and thus has shown that, in the last resort, nature works dialectically and not 
metaphysically”—reads as follows:] 

Nature is the proof of dialectics, and it must be said for modern 
science that it has furnished this proof with very rich materials 
increasing daily, and thus has shown that, in the last resort, 
Nature works dialectically and not metaphysically; that she does 
not move in the eternal oneness of a perpetually recurring circle, 
but goes through a real historical evolution. In this connection 
Darwin must be named before all others. He dealt the metaphysi- 
cal conception of Nature the heaviest blow by his proof that all 
organic beings, plants, animals, and man himself, are the products 
of a process of evolution going on through millions of years. 

pp. 24-25 

[The words: “That Hegel did not solve the problem is here immaterial. His 
epoch-making merit was that he propounded the problem”—read as follows:] 

That the Hegelian system did not solve the problem it 
propounded is here immaterial. Its epoch-making merit was that it 
propounded the problem. 

pp. 26-27 
[The passage: “The new facts made imperative a new examination of all past 
history. Then it was seen that all past history was the history of class struggles; that 

these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production 

22* 

634 Appendices 

and of exchange—in a word, of the economic conditions of their time; that the 
economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which 
we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of 
juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious, philosophical, and 
other ideas of a given historical period. But now idealism was driven from its last 
refuge, the philosophy of history; now a materialistic treatment of history was 
propounded, and a method found of explaining man’s ‘knowing’ by his ‘being’, 
instead of, as heretofore, his ‘being’ by his ‘knowing’. 

“But the socialism of earlier days was as incompatible with this materialistic 
conception as the conception of nature of the French materialists was with dialectics 
and modern natural science. The socialism of earlier days certainly criticised the 
existing capitalistic mode of production and its consequences. But it could not 
explain them, and, therefore, could not get the mastery of them. It could only 
simply reject them as bad”—reads as follows:] 

The new facts made imperative a new examination of all past 
history. Then it was seen that all past history, with the exception 
of its primitive stages, was the history of class struggles; that these 
warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of 
production and of exchange—in a word, of the economic 
conditions of their time; that the economic structure of society 
always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone 
work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of 
juridical and political institutions as well as of the religious, 
philosophical, and other ideas of a given historical period. Hegel 
had freed history from metaphysics—he had made it dialectic; but 
his conception of history was essentially idealistic. But now 
idealism was driven from its last refuge, the philosophy of history; 
now a materialistic treatment of history was propounded, and a 
method found of explaining man’s “knowing” by his “being”, 
instead of, as heretofore, his “being” by his “knowing”. 

From that time forward Socialism was no longer an accidental 
discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary 
outcome of the struggle between two historically developed 
classes—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Its task was no longer 
to manufacture a system of society as perfect as possible, but to 
examine the historico-economic succession of events from which 
these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung, and to 
discover in the economic conditions thus created the means of 
ending the conflict. But the Socialism of earlier days was as 
incompatible with this materialistic conception as the conception of 
Nature of the French materialists was with dialectics and modern 
natural science. The Socialism of earlier days certainly criticised 
the existing capitalistic mode of production and its consequences. 
But it could not explain them, and, therefore, could not get the 
mastery of them. It could only simply reject them as bad. The 

Additions to the Text of Anti-Dühring 635 

more strongly this earlier Socialism denounced the exploitation of 
the working-class, inevitable under Capitalism, the less able was it 
clearly to show in what this exploitation consisted and how it 
arose. 

Part III. Ch. I 
p. 244 

[The passage: “The antagonism between rich and poor, instead of dissolving into 
general prosperity, had become intensified by the removal of the guild and other 
privileges, which had to some extent bridged it over, and by the removal of the 
charitable institutions of the Church. The development of industry upon a 
capitalistic basis made poverty and misery of the working masses conditions of 
existence of society”—reads as follows:] 

The antagonism between rich and poor, instead of dissolving 
into general prosperity, had become intensified by the removal of 
the guild and other privileges, which had to some extent bridged 
it over, and by the removal of the charitable institutions of the 
Church. The “freedom of property” from feudal fetters, now 
veritably accomplished, turned out to be, for the small capitalists 
and small proprietors, the freedom to sell their small property, 
crushed under the overmastering competition of the large 
capitalists and landlords, to these great lords, and thus, as far as 
the small capitalists and peasant proprietors were concerned, 
became “freedom from property”. The development of industry 
upon a capitalistic basis made poverty and misery of the working 
masses conditions of existence of society. Cash payment became 
more and more, in Carlyle’s phrase, the sole nexus between man 
and man.* 

p. 245 

[The passage: “But modern industry develops, on the one hand, the conflicts 
which make absolutely necessary a revolution in the mode of production, conflicts 
not only between the classes begotten of it, but also between the very productive 
forces and the forms of exchange created by it. And, on the other hand, it 
develops, in these very gigantic productive forces, the means of ending these 
conflicts” —reads as follows:] 

But Modern Industry develops, on the one hand, the conflicts 
which make absolutely necessary a revolution in the mode of 

a See Th. Carlyle, Past and Present, p. 198.— Ed. 

636 Appendices 

production, and the doing away with its capitalistic character— 
conflicts not only between the classes begotten of it, but also between 
the very productive forces and the forms of exchange created by it. 
And, on the other hand, it develops, in these very gigantic 
productive forces, the means of ending these conflicts. 

p. 245 

[The text: “The propertyless masses of Paris, during the Reign of Terror, 
were able for a moment to gain the mastery. But, in doing so, they only proved 
how impossible it was for their domination to last under the conditions then 
obtaining’”’— reads as follows:] 

The “have-nothing” masses of Paris, during the Reign of 
Terror, were able for a moment to gain the mastery, and thus to 
lead the bourgeois revolution to victory in spite of the bourgeoisie 
themselves. But, in doing so, they only proved how impossible it 
was for their domination to last under the conditions then 
obtaining. 

p. 246 

[Before the sentence: “Already in his Geneva letters, Saint-Simon lays down the 
proposition that ‘all men ought to work’”—two paragraphs were added:] 

Saint Simon was a son of the great French Revolution, at the 
outbreak of which he was not yet thirty. The Revolution was the 
victory of the third estate, 1.e., of the great masses of the nation, 
working in production and in trade, over the privileged idle 
classes, the nobles and the priests. But the victory of the third 
estate soon revealed itself as exclusively the victory of a small part 
of this “estate”, as the conquest of political power by the socially 
privileged section of it, ze, the propertied bourgeoisie. And the 
bourgeoisie had certainly developed rapidly during the Revolu- 
tion, partly by speculation in the lands of the nobility and of the 
Church, confiscated and afterwards put up for sale, and partly by 
frauds upon the nation by means of army contracts. It was the 
domination of these swindlers that, under the Directorate, brought 
France to the verge of ruin, and thus gave Napoleon the pretext 
for his coup d’état>” 

Hence, to Saint Simon the antagonism between the third estate 
and the privileged classes took the form of an antagonism between 
“workers” and “idlers’. The idlers were not merely the old 
privileged classes, but also all who, without taking any part in 

Additions to the Text of Anti-Dühring 637 

production or distribution, lived on their incomes. And the 
workers were not only the wage-workers, but also the manufactur- 
ers, the merchants, the bankers. That the idlers had lost the 
capacity for intellectual leadership and political supremacy had 
been proved, and was by the Revolution finally settled. That the 
non-possessing classes had not this capacity seemed to Saint Simon 
proved by the experiences of the Reign of Terror. Then, who was 
to lead and command? According to Saint Simon, science and 
industry, both united by a new religious bond, destined to restore 
that unity of religious ideas which had been lost since the time of 
the Reformation—a necessarily mystic and rigidly hierarchic “new 
Christianity”. But science, that was the scholars; and industry, that 
was, in the first place, the working bourgeois, manufacturers, 
merchants, bankers. These bourgeois were, certainly, intended by 
Saint Simon to transform themselves into a kind of public officials, 
of social trustees; but they were still to hold, vis-a-vis of the 
workers, a commanding and economically privileged position. The 
bankers especially were to be called upon to direct the whole of 
social production by the regulation of credit. This conception was 
in exact keeping with a time in which Modern Industry in France 
and, with it, the chasm between bourgeoisie, and proletariat was 
only just coming into existence. But what Saint Simon especially 
lays stress upon is this: what interests him first, and above all other 
things, is the lot of the class that is the most numerous and the 
most poor (“la classe la plus nombreuse et la plus pauvre’)?* 

p. 246 

[The sentence: “But to recognise the French Revolution as a class war between 
nobility, bourgeoisie, and the non-possessors, was, in the year 1802, a most pregnant 
discovery”—reads as follows:] 

But to recognise the French Revolution as a class war, and not 
simply one between nobility and bourgeoisie, but between nobility, 
bourgeoisie, and the non-possessors, was, in the year 1802, a most 
pregnant discovery. 

p. 248 
[The sentence: “He divides its whole course, thus far, into four stages of 
evolution— savagery, the patriarchate, barbarism, civilisation. This last is identical 

with the so-called bourgeois society of today”—reads as follows:] 

He divides its whole course, thus far, into four stages of 

638 Appendices 

evolution— savagery, barbarism, the patriarchate, civilisation.* This 
last is identical with the so-called civil, or bourgeois, society of 
to-day—i.e., with the social order that came in with the sixteenth 
century. 

p. 249 

[The sentence: ‘Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social 
abuses—the herding together of a homeless population in the worst quarters of the 
large towns; the loosening of all traditional moral bonds, of patriarchal 
subordination, of family relations; overwork, especially of women and children, to a 
frightful extent; complete demoralisation of the working class, suddenly flung into 
altogether new conditions”—reads as follows:] 

Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social abuses — 
the herding together of a homeless population in the. worst 
quarters of the large towns; the loosening of all traditional moral 
bonds, of patriarchal subordination, of family relations; overwork, 
especially of women and children, to a frightful extent; complete 
demoralisation of the working-class, suddenly flung into altogether 
new conditions, from the country into the town, from agriculture 

into modern industry, from stable conditions of existence into 
insecure ones that changed from day to day. 

p. 250 

[The following reference is given for the last quotation from Owen’s book:] 

From The Revolution in Mind and Practice, p. 21, a memorial 
addressed to all the “red Republicans, Communists and Socialists 
of Europe”, and sent to the _ provisional government of 
France, 1848, and also “to Queen Victoria and her responsible 
advisers’. 

Part III. Ch. II 
p. 256 

{The sentence: “But where, in a given society, the fundamental form of 
production is that spontaneous division of labour, there the products take on the 
form of commodities whose mutual exchange, buying and selling, enable the 
individual producers to satisfy their manifold wants’”—reads as follows:] 

4 The German editions of Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur 
Wissenschaft have “...savagery, the patriarchate, barbarism, civilisation” .— Ed. 

Additions to the Text of Anti-Dühring 639 

But where, in a given society, the fundamental form of 
production is that spontaneous division of labour which creeps in 
gradually and not upon any preconceived plan, there the products 
take on the form of commodities, whose mutual exchange, buying 
and selling, enable the individual producers to satisfy their 
manifold wants. 

p-. 260 

[The following note is given for the word “mark” in the sentence that runs: 
“Hence, exchange was restricted, the market narrow, the methods of prodiiction 
stable; there was local exclusiveness without, local unity within; the mark in the 
country; in the town, the guild”—a note is given:] 

See Appendix. [Here Engels refers to his work The Mark. See 
present edition, Vol. 24.] 

p. 265 

[The sentence: “At a further stage of evolution this form also becomes insuffi- 
cient: the official representative of capitalist society—the state—will ultimately 
have to undertake the direction of production”—is replaced by the following 

passage] 

At a further stage of evolution this form also becomes 
insufficient. The producers on a large scale in a particular branch 
of industry in a particular country unite in a “Trust”, a union for 
the purpose of regulating production. They determine the total 
amount to be produced, parcel] it out among themselves, and thus 
enforce the selling price fixed beforehand. But trusts of this kind, 
as soon as business becomes bad, are generally liable to break up, 
and,on this very account, compel a yet greater concentration of 
association. The whole of the particular industry is turned into 
one gigantic joint-stock company; internal competition gives place 
to the internal monopoly of this one company. This has happened 
in 1890 with the English alkali production, which is now, after the 
fusion of 48 large works, in the hands of one company, conducted 
upon a single plan, and with a capital of £6,000,000. 

In the trusts, freedom of competition changes into its very 
opposite—into monopoly; and the production without any defi- 
nite plan of capitalistic society capitulates to the production upon a 
definite plan of the invading socialistic society. Certainly this is so 
far still to the benefit and advantage of the capitalists. But in this 
case the exploitation is so palpable that it must break down. No 

640 Appendices 

nation will put up with production conducted by trusts, with so 
barefaced an exploitation of the community by a small band of 
dividend-mongers. 

In any case, with trusts or without, the official representative of 
capitalist society—the State—will ultimately have to undertake the 
direction of production. 

p. 265 

[The sentence: “Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain 
manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic 
institutions”—reads as follows:] 

Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company,*“ the Royal porcelain 

manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would 
also be socialistic institutions, or even, as was seriously proposed by 
a sly dog in Frederick William III’s reign, the taking over by the 
State of the brothels. 

pp. 265-66 

[In three cases the words “and trusts” are added after “joint-stock companies”’.] 

pp. 268-69 

[The sentence: “It does not prevent the ruling class, once having the upper 
hand, from consolidating its power at the expense of the working class, from 
turning its social leadership into an exploitation of the masses” —reads as follows:] 

It does not prevent the ruling class, once having the upper hand, 
from consolidating its power at the expense of the working-class, 
from turning their social leadership into an intensified exploitation 
of the masses. 

p. 270 

[Before the chapter’s last paragraph the following résumé was added:] 

Let us briefly sum up our sketch of historical evolution. 
I. Mediaeval Society—Individual production on a small scale. 
Means of production adapted for individual use; hence primitive, 

Additions to the Text of Anti-Dihring 641 

ungainly, petty, dwarfed in action. Production for immediate 
consumption, either of the producer himself or of his feudal lord. 
Only where an excess of production over this consumption occurs 
is such excess offered for sale, enters into exchange. Production of 
commodities, therefore, only in its infancy. But already it contains 
within itself, in embryo, anarchy in the production of society at large. 

II. Capitalist Revolution.—Transformation of industry, at first by 
means of simple co-operation and manufacture. Concentration of 
the means of production, hitherto scattered, into great workshops. 
As a consequence, their transformation from individual to social 
means of production—a transformation which does not, on the 
whole, affect the form of exchange. The old forms of appropria- 
tion remain in force. The capitalist appears. In his capacity as 
owner of the means of production, he also appropriates the 
products and turns them into commodities. Production has 
become a social act. Exchange and appropriation continue to be 
individual acts, the acts of individuals. The social product 1s 
appropriated by the individual capitalist. Fundamental contradiction, 
whence arise all the contradictions in which our present day 
society moves, and which modern industry brings to light. 

A. Severance of the producer from the means of production. 
Condemnation of the worker to wage-labour for life. Antagonism 
between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. 

B. Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the 
laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled compe- 
tition. Contradiction between socialised organisation in the individual 
factory and social anarchy in production as a whole. 

C. On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by 
competition compulsory for each individual manufacturer, and 
complemented by a constantly growing displacement of labourers. 
Industrial reserve-army. On the other hand, unlimited extension of 
production, also compulsory under competition, for every man- 
ufacturer. On both sides, unheard of development of productive 
forces, excess of supply over demand, over-production, glutting of 
the markets, crises every ten years, the vicious circle: excess here, 
of means of production and products—excess there, of labourers, 
without employment and without means of existence. But these 
two levers of production and of social well-being are unable to 
work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents 
the productive forces from working and the products from 
circulating, unless they are first turned into capital—which their 
very superabundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into 
an absurdity. The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form 

642 Appendices 

of exchange. The bourgeoisie are convicted of incapacity further to 
manage their own social productive forces. 

D. Partial recognition of the social character of the productive 
forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the 
great institutions for production and communication, first by 
joint-stock companies, later on by trusts, then by the State. The 
bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social 
functions are now performed by salaried employees. 

III. Proletarian Revolution—Solution of the contradictions. The 
proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this 
transforms the socialised means of production, slipping from the 
hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the 
proletariat frees the means of production from the character of 
capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialised 
character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialised produc- 
tion upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The 
development of production makes the existence of different 
classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as 
anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the 
State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social 
organisation, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his 
own master—free. 

NOTES 
AND 
INDEXES 

645 

NOTES 

| Anti-Dihring is the title under which Engels’ classical work Herr Eugen 
Dühring’s Revolution in Science is widely known. 

The attention of Marx and Engels was first drawn to Dihring when his 
review of Volume One of Capital was published in Erganzungsblatter, Vol. III, 
issue No. 3, in December 1867. They expressed a critical attitude towards him 
in a number of letters of January to March 1868. 

In the mid-1870s, Dühring exerted quite a significant influence on German 
Social-Democrats.: The second edition of Kritische Geschichte der Nationaldkonomie 
und des Soztalismus (November 1875) and the publication of Cursus der 
Philosophie als streng wissenschaftlicher Weltanschauung und Lebensgestaltung (the 
last issue appeared in February 1875) made his views more popular. His most 
active followers were Johann Most, Friedrich Wilhelm Fritzsche and Eduard 
Bernstein. Even August Bebel came under the influence of Dihring’s views for 
a short time. In March 1874, two of Bebel’s articles about Dühring published 
anonymously under the title “Ein neuer ‘Communist’” in the Volksstaat, the 
central organ of the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party (Eisenachers), aroused 
sharp protest on the part of Marx and Engels. 

The spread of Dithring’s views made Liebknecht, on February | and April 
21, 1875, propose to Engels that they be criticised in the Volksstaat. 

Engels criticised Dithring for the first time in February 1876, in an article 
“Prussian Vodka in the German Reichstag”, published in Volksstaat (see present 
edition, Vol. 24). Later, in his letter to Marx of May 24, 1876, he writes of the 
need to initiate a campaign against the spread of Dühring’s views in Germany. 
Replying on May 25, Marx supported Engels’ idea and suggested that, first of 
all, Dihring himself be sharply criticised (see present edition, Vol. 45). 
Engels broke off his work on Dialectics of Nature, and by May 28 informed Marx 
of the general plan and character of the proposed work. 

Engels worked on Anti-Dühring for two years—from late May 1876 to early 
July 1878. Part I of the book was written mainly between September 1876 and 
January 1877. It was published as a series of articles entitled Herrn Eugen 
Dühring’s Umwélzung der Philosophie in Vorwdrts in January-May 1877 (Nos. 1-7, 
10 and 11, January 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, 24 and 26; Nos. 17, 24 and 25, 
February 9, 25 and 28; Nos. 36 and 37, March 25 and 28; Nos. 44, 45, 49 and 
50, April 15, 18, 27 and 29; Nos. 55 and 56, May 11 and 13). Later, beginning 

646 Notes 

in 1878, with the first separate edition, the first two chapters of this part were 
made into an independent general introduction to all three parts. 

Part II of the book was written mainly between June and August 1877. The 
last, X chapter of this part was written by Marx (see this volume, pp. 9, 15). In 
addition, in his letters to Engels of March 7 and August 8, 1877, Marx 
explained a number of economic problems, especially those connected with 
Quesnay’s Tableau économique, which was difficult to understand (see this 
volume, p. 239). Engels also read the whole manuscript of Anti-Dühring to 
Marx before sending it to the printers (see this volume, p. 9). 

Part II was published under the title Herrn Eugen Dühring’s Umwalzung der 
politischen O0ckonomie in Wissenschaftliche Beilage and in the supplement to 
Vorwarts from July to December 1877 (No. 87, July 27; Nos. 93 and 96, 
August 10 and 17; Nos. 105 and 108, September 7 and 14; No. 127, October 28; 
Nos. 130 and 139, November 4 and 28; No. 152, December 30). 

Part III of the book was written mainly between August 1877 and April 
1878. It was published as Herrn Eugen Dühring’s Umwalzung des Sozialismus in 
the supplement to Vorwdrts in May to July 1878 (Nos. 52 and 61, May 5 and 
26; Nos. 64 and 75, June 2 and 28; No. 79, July 7). 

The publication of Anti-Dühring in Vorwarts aroused strong resistance on 
the part of Dühring’s followers. At the next congress of the Socialist Workers’ 
Party of Germany, in Gotha from May 27 to 29, 1877, they attempted to ban 
the publication of this work in the Party’s central organ. It was due to them that 
Anti-Dühring was being printed at lengthy intervals. 

In July 1877, Part I of Engels’ work was published in Leipzig as a separate 
pamphlet: Herrn Eugen Dühring’s Umwilzung der Wissenschaft. I. Philosophie. 
In July 1878, Parts II and III were also published as a separate pamphlet: 
Herrn Eugen Dühring’s Umwalzung der Wissenschaft. II. Politische Oekonomie. 
Sozialismus. 

The entire work was first published in book form in Leipzig on about July 8, 
1878, with a preface by Engels: F. Engels, Herrn Eugen Dühring’s Umwalzung 
der Wissenschaft. Philosophie. Politische Oekonomie. Soztalismus. Its title is an 
ironical paraphrase of the title of Dühring’s work Carey’s Umwdlzung der 
Volkswirtschaftslehre und Socialwissenschaft. At the end of October 1878, after the 
Anti-Socialist Law had been put into force in Germany, Anti-Dtihring was 
banned along with Engels’ other works. Its second edition appeared in Zurich, 
in 1886. The third, revised and supplemented edition was published in 
Stuttgart, in 1894, i.e., after the Anti-Socialist Law was repealed (1890). This was 
the last edition during Engels’ lifetime. The second and third editions bore the 
same title, but the subtitle Philosophie. Politische Oekonomie. Sozialismus was 
omitted. 

In 1880, at Paul Lafargue’s request, Engels used three chapters of 
Anti-Dühring (Chapter I of the Introduction and chapters I and II of Part II) 
to provide a separate popular pamphlet, first published under the title 
Socialism Utopian and Scientific, and later as The Development of Socialism from 
Utopia to Science (see present edition, Vol. 24).