London, 25 October 1881 

Dear Mr Bernstein, 

I am most grateful to you for having written to me about the 
Egalité business.?!? Aside from the point at issue, this provides me 
with an opportunity of letting you know what is Marx’s attitude, and 
hence also my own, towards the French movement. And from this 
one instance you will be able to gauge our attitude towards other 
non-German movements, in so far as these are in sympathy with us 
and we with them. 

I am glad that you are not at present in a position to give financial 
support to the Egalité. Lafargue’s letter was another of those coups de 
téte* which the French, in particular those south of the line Bordeaux- 
Lyons, now and again find themselves unable to resist. So certain was 
he of perpetrating a stroke of genius and a blunder rolled into one, 
that he didn’t even tell his wife’ (who has prevented many such 
things) about it until after the event. With the exception of Lafargue, 
who is always in favour of ‘something being done’, n’importe quot,“ we 
over here were unanimously against Egalité No. 3.4 I confidently 

a c 

impulsive actions-> Laura Lafargue - 

no matter what-¢ Engels means the third 
series of L’Egalité. 

predicted that, with their 5,000 frs (zf as much), they would last out 
for 32 numbers. If Guesde and Lafargue are intent on acquiring the 
reputation in Paris of tueurs de journeaux,* we can’t stop them, but nor 
shall we do anything else. If, contrary to all expectation, the paper 
improves again, and if it gets really good, we shall always be able to 
see what can be done if it finds itself in a predicament. But it’s abso- 
lutely essential that these gentlemen should learn at last how to stand 
on their own feet. 

The fact of the matter is that, during the past 12 or 15 months, our 
French friends, who are trying to set up the parti owvrier,» have made 
one blunder after another, and this applies to all of them without ex- 
ception. The first was committed by Guesde when, for absurdly pur- 
ist reasons, he prevented Malon from accepting the editorship of the 
labour department on the Jntransigeant at a salary of 12,000 frs. That 
was when the whole squabble began. This was followed by the unpar- 
donable folly over the Emancipation, when Malon allowed himself to 
be misled by the false promises of the Lyonnais (the worst working 
men in France), while Guesde showed himself no less feverishly an- 
xious to have a daily paper @ tout prix.« Next came the hair-splitting 
over the matter of candidature,? in which connection it is more 
than probable that Guesde was guilty of the solecism you reprobate, 
though it is obvious to me that Malon was seeking to pick a quarrel. 
Finally, the ingress into, followed by the egress from, the Cztoyen 
frangais, of Mr Bourbeau, alias Secondigné, an adventurer of the worst 
repute — his egress being due simply to non-payment of salary, not to 
any political motive. Next, Guesde, in very mixed company, joined 
the most recent Citoyen, and Malon and Brousse the miserable Pro- 
létaire which they—or Malon at any rate--had always secretly 
opposed as a vulgar loutish rag. 

The Prolétaire was the organ of the very narrowest clique of the 
most inveterate scribblers among the Parisian workers. It was axio- 
matic that access could be had and contributions made only by ge- 
nuine manual workers. The most bigoted Weitlingian ‘scholar’- 
baiting was the order of the day. The sheet was in consequence quite 
without substance, while preening itself on being Ja plus pure expres- 
ston of the Parisian proletariat. Hence, for all its apparent cordiality, 
it always secretly looked upon other papers, including the 2 Egalités, 
as mortal enemies and intrigued against them. 

b 

4 killers of newspapers-° workers’ party-° at all custs-¢ the purest expression 

When Malon now maintains that the French workers’ party is en- 
deavouring to create an organ for itself in the Prolétaire, and questions 
the need for a competing Egalité, no one is better aware than 
Malon, 1. that the two first Egalités also existed alongside the Pro- 
létaire simply because 2. nothing could be made of the Prolétaire, and 
Malon knows the Prolétaire people just as well as Guesde does, and 
3. that the few blockheads on the Prolétaire, together with Malon and 
Brousse, don’t by any means make up the whole of the French work- 
ers’ party. Hence he knows that all this is a red herring and that it is 
he who is seeking to create an organ for himself in the Prolétaire, hav- 
ing made things too hot for himself everywhere else. 

But the link that binds Malon and Brousse to this potty little sheet 
is their common jealousy of Marx. To the majority of French social- 
ists it is an anathema that the nation which confers upon the world 
the boon of idées frangaises* and has a monopoly of ideas— that Paris, 
centre des lumiéres » — must now all of a sudden import its socialist ideas 
ready-made from a German, Marx. But there’s no denying the fact 
and, what is more, Marx’s genius, his almost excessive scientific scru- 
pulousness and his incredible erudition place him so far above all the 
rest of us that anyone who ventures to criticise his discoveries is 
more likely to burn his fingers than anything else. That is something 
which must be left to a more advanced epoch. If, then, French social- 
ists (i.e. the majority) are obliged, whether they like it or not, to bow 
to the inevitable, it will not happen without a certain amount of 
grumbling. It is the Prolétaire people who say, of both Guesde and 
Lafargue, that they are Marx’s mouthpieces or, translated into more 
familiar idiom, that is veulent vendre les ouvriers frangais aux Prussiens et a 
Bismarck.« And in everything M. Malon writes, this grumbling is 
most plainly audible and, what’s more, in most ignoble form: Malon 
is at pains to find or impute other progenitors (Lassalle, Schaffle and 
actually De Paepe!) on whom to father Marx’s discoveries. Now it is, 
of course, perfectly in order to disagree with party members, no mat- 
ter whom, as to their mode of procedure in this or that case, or to dis- 
pute or differ on a point of theory. But thus to contest the right of 
a man like Marx to his own achievements is to betray a pettiness such 
as is found, one might almost say, only in a compositor,—a race of 
whose self-conceit you will surely have had ample experience. I sim- 

c 

@ French ideas-” centre of enlightenment - 
to the Prussians and Bismarck 

they want to sell the French workers 

ply cannot understand how anyone can be envious of genius; it’s 
something so very special that we, who have not got it, know it to be 
unattainable right from the start; but to be envious of anything like 
that one must have to be frightfully small-minded. The furtive way 
Malon goes about it, doesn’t improve matters. The fact that it is he 
who eventually comes out worst, betraying his lack of knowledge and 
discernment at every turn, is something of which he might at some 
time be made unpleasantly aware, should it at any time become ne- 
cessary to scrutinise Malon’s goodly Histoire du Socialisme “depuis les 
temps les plus reculés* (1!) and other productions with an eye to 
their substance. 

Brousse is, I think, the most hopelessly muddle-headed man 
I have ever known. He has dropped the anarchy —i. e. opposition to 
political activity and voting — out of anarchism, while at the same 
time retaining all its other catchwords and, more notably, its tactics. 
Thus, in tedious articles in the Prolétaire directed against Guesde 
(but not naming him), he is currently brooding on the insoluble ques- 
tion of how to set up an organisation in such a way as to preclude 
a dictatorship (Guesde’s!!). If this consummate literary and theoreti- 
cal ignoramus, whose forte, however, is cliquism, is again able to play 
a part, the blame must be shared by Lafargue, Guesde and Malon. 

Lastly Guesde. In matters of theory this man is by far the most lucid 
thinker amongst the Parisians, and one of the few who takes no excep- 
tion at all to the German origins of present-day socialism. Hinc illae 
lacrimae.” Which is why the gentlemen of the Prolétaire are letting it 
be known that he is merely Marx’s mouthpiece, a rumour which, 
with lugubrious mien, Malon and Brousse carry further afield. Out- 
side that clique no one dreams of such a thing. What there is to it, we 
shall see anon. That he is domineering may well be true. Every one of 
us is domineering in the sense that he would like to see his views pre- 
dominate. If Guesde seeks to do this by direct and Malon by tortuous 
means, it says much for Guesde’s character and for the superiority of 
Malon’s worldly wisdom — especially in dealing with people like the 
Parisians who obstinately dig their heels in if you try to dictate to 
them but are only too delighted to let you lead them by the nose. 
Come to that, whenever I have heard anyone who is worth his salt 
described as domineering, I have only been able to conclude that 

* from the earliest times. See B. Malon, Histoire du socialisme depuis les temps les plus reculés 
jusqu’a nos jours.-» Hence those tears (Terence, Andria, I, 1, 99). 

there was nothing that could really be said against the man. Guesde’s 
failings are of quite a different kind. First, the Parisian superstition 
that the word revolution is something one must continually bandy 
about. And secondly, boundless impatience. He is suffering from 
a nervous complaint, believes he has not much longer to live and is 
absolutely determined to see something worthwhile happen before he 
goes. That, and his morbid excitability, provide the explanation for 
his exaggerated and sometimes destructive thirst for action. 

If, in addition, you take the inability of the French, especially the 
Parisians, to conceive of differences that are other than personal, and it 
is obvious enough how it was that these gentry, as soon as they had 
scored a few small successes, saw themselves already at the goal, 
sought to divide as yet inexistent spoils, and fell out with each other in 
the process. 

Guesde’s pamphlets and articles, by the way, are the best to have 
appeared in the French language, and he is, moreover, one of the best 
speakers in Paris. Also, we have always found him forthcoming and 
reliable. 

Now for ourselves. We, i.e. Marx and I, do not even correspond 
with Guesde. We have only written to him for specific reasons of busi- 
ness. We have no more than a general idea of what Lafargue says in 
his letters to Guesde, nor have we by any means read everything 
Guesde writes to Lafargue. Heaven only knows what plans the two of 
them have exchanged of which we have no inkling. Every now and 
again Marx, like myself, has transmitted advice to Guesde via La- 
fargue, but it has hardly ever been taken. 

It is true, however, that Guesde came over here when the question 
arose of drafting a programme for the French workers’ party. 
The considérants to this was dictated to him by Marx,* here in my own 
room, in the presence of Lafargue and myself: the worker is free only 
when he is the owner of his instruments of labour— this may assume 
either individual or collective form— the individual form of owner- 
ship is being daily and increasingly superseded by economic develop- 
ments, hence, all that remains is that of communal ownership, etc.— 
a masterpiece of cogent reasoning, calculated to explain things to the 
masses in a few words; I have seldom seen its like and, even in this 
concise version, found it astonishing. The remaining contents of the 
programme were then discussed; we added this and took out that, but 

* See K. Marx, ‘Preamble to the Programme of the French Workers’ Party’. 

as for Guesde being Marx’s mouthpiece, how little this holds water is 
evident from the fact that he insisted on including his nonsense about 
the minimum du salaire* and since not we but the French were respon- 
sible for the thing, we eventually gave him his head, although he ad- 
mitted that, theoretically, it was absurd. 

Brousse was in London at the time and would have liked to join us. 
But Guesde was short of time and anticipated, not incorrectly, that 
Brousse would engage in tedious arguments about ill-digested anar- 
chist terms; he therefore insisted that Brousse should not attend this 
meeting. C’ était son affaire.” But Brousse has never forgiven him for it 
and it’s to that time that his intrigues against Guesde go back. 

This programme was subsequently discussed by the French and ac- 
cepted with a few alterations, including Malon’s which were by no 
means improvements. 

Then, too, I wrote 2 articles for the Egalité No. II on Le socialisme de 
M. Bismarck and that, so far as I’m aware, is the sum total of our 
active participation in the French movement. 

But what mainly annoys the small-minded carpers who count for 
nothing, yet like to think themselves all-important, is the fact that 
Marx, thanks to his theoretical and practical achievements, has at- 
tained a position in which he enjoys the complete trust of the best people 
in all the labour movements in the various countries. At critical junc- 
tures it is to him they turn for advice, when they generally find that his 
advice is the best. He occupies that position in Germany, in France, 
and in Russia, not to speak of the smaller countries. Hence it is not 
Marx who imposes his opinion, let alone his will, on these people; 
rather it is these people who come to him of their own accord. And it 
is precisely on this that Marx’s peculiar influence rests, an influence of 
the utmost importance to the movement. Malon also wished to come 
here, but to procure a special invitation from Marx through La- 
fargue, which naturally he didn’t get. We were as prepared to deal 
with him as we are with anybody else de bonne volonté,’ but invite him! 
Why? Who has ever had an invitation of that kind from us? 

Marx’s attitude, and hence also my own, towards the French is the 
same as towards the other national movements. We are constantly in 
touch with them in so far as it is worth our while and opportunities 

* minimum wage -° It was his business.-° F. Engels, ‘The Socialism of Mr Bismarck, 
I-Il’, L’Egalité, Nos. 7 and 10, 3 and 24 March 1880 (see present edition, Vol. 24). - 
4 willingly 

present themselves, but any attempt to influence people against their 
will would only do us harm, destroy the old trust that dates from the 
International. And we have, after all, too much experience in revolu- 
tionaribus rebus* to do that. 

Now for two more Facts. 

1. It was Guesde, and with him Lafargue, who, in the Egalité, 
brought quite undeserved fame to Malon, turned him, as it were, into 
a legend, and this simply because Guesde thought, in typically 
French fashion, that as a writer one had to have a working man beside 
one. 

2. And here is something the recipient of the letter has authorised 
me to tell you: Lissagaray, who was the chairman of the meeting at 
which Malon arraigned that blackguard Lullier, writes to say that, 
just as the meeting was supposed to begin, Lullier sent word to Malon 
requesting a short discussion. Malon departed, didn’t return, and fi- 
nally his Comité went in search of him (Lissagaray was the chairman of 
the Comité and the meeting) only to find him toping most jovially and 
on the brink of a peaceable understanding with Lullier, the man he 
had (rightly) described as the dirtiest of blackguards. Had not Malon 
had to leave at 9 o’clock for the congress at Zurich,?!* there would 
have been the risk of a full reconciliation. And he describes himself as 
a man of politics! 

Mesa’s address is: J. Mesa, 36 Rue du Bac, Paris. 

Marx knows nothing about this letter. He has been in bed for the 
past 12 days with bronchitis and all kinds of complications, but since 
Sunday -— due precautions having been taken — there has no longer 
been any danger. I’ve been anxious enough, I can tell you. Now 
things are looking up and tomorrow, 27 October, we shall, I trust, 
show the world that we are still there as large as life.?!* Kindest 
regards to Kautsky. 

Your 
F. E. 

As regards the Fgalité, I think it would be best if our people were 
not to found a new paper for the time being, at any rate until the state 
of affairs within the party has become a little less obscure. If they do 
want to start one, however, neither we nor anyone else can stop them, 
though I don’t see how it’s going to be managed this time without 

a 

in revolutionary matters -” 23 October 

a row between the Egalité and the Prolétaire. This wouldn’t be a 
major disaster, but it would still be a perhaps unnecessary case of 
teething trouble. 

What kind of operation is Kautsky having? —I trust he won’t let 
himself be cut up into a complete Malthusian!