London, 18 November 1884

Dear Bebel,

I had meant to write to you about the Rodbertus business but, now that my preface to The Poverty of Philosophy‘ is to appear in the Neue Keit, you will find the essentials set forth better there than could be done in a letter. The rest will follow later, in the preface to Capital, Book II.¢

There is, however, another point about which I should like to give you my opinion, and which seems to me more urgent.

Such is the respect we have inspired in liberal philistines generally that they all exclaim with one voice: ‘All right, only let the Social Democrats place themselves on a legal footing and abjure revolution——then we shall support the immediate repeal of the Anti- Socialist Law. 3”? Hence there can be no doubt that this insolent proposal will be put to you forthwith in the Reichstag. The reply you make is of importance, not so much to Germany where our stalwart lads have already given it at the polling booths, as to other countries.

bertus’.- ¢ See present edition, Vol. 36.

A tame reply would immediately destroy the tremendous impression created by the elections. *°°

As I see it, the case is as follows:

The political situation now obtaining throughout Europe is the result of revolutions. Everywhere the fundamental laws, historical laws, legitimacy, have been infringed a thousand times over, if not actually subverted. It is, however, in the nature of all parties and/or classes that have come to power by revolutionary means to demand that the fundamental laws newly created by the revolution be unconditionally recognised and held sacrosanct. The right to revolution has existed — otherwise those who now rule would, after all, not be entitled to do so——but from now on it is to cease to exist.

In Germany the present situation is based on the revolution that began in 1848 and ended in 1866. 1866 saw a complete revolution. Just as Prussia became what it is only by betraying and making war on the German Empire in alliance with other countries (1740, 1756, 1795 $'7), so, too, it was only by the forcible subversion of the German Confederation and by civil war that it brought into being the Prusso-German Empire. 31° Its assertion that it was the others who broke the federal treaty in no way alters the fact. The others maintain the contrary. No revolution has ever yet lacked a pretext of legality — vide France in 1830 when King * and bourgeoisie each claimed to be in the right. In short, Prussia fomented civil war and, with it, revolution. After its victory, it overthrew three thrones ‘by the grace of God’ and annexed their territories, together with the once free city of Frankfurt. 31° If that was not revolutionary, then I don’t know what the word means. Not content with that, it confiscated the private property of the princes it had driven out. That this was not legal, hence revolutionary, it admitted when it induced an assembly — the Reichstag — to approve the deed in retrospect, though the said assembly had no more right than the government to dispose of those funds, 37°

The Prusso-German Empire, as the consummation of the North German Confederation forcibly created by the events of 1867,° 32? is a wholly revolutionary creation. | am not complaining about that. What I do reproach the chaps for—— the ones responsible for it—is for having been no more than pusillanimous revolutionaries, for not hav-

@ Louis Philippe- 1866 in the original.

ing gone much further and annexed the whole of Germany to Prussia straight away. But anyone whose instruments are blood and iron, who overthrows monarchies, engulfs entire states and confiscates private property, should not damn other people as revolutionaries. Should the party merely retain the right to be neither more nor less revolutionary than the imperial government has shown itself, it will have obtained all it requires.

Not long since, it was officially stated that the imperial constitution was not a compact between the princes and the people, but only a compact between the princes and the free cities for which a new one could at any time be substituted. Thus, the government organs that expounded this were demanding for the governments the right éo subvert the impertal constitution. They were not subjected to an emergency law, nor were they prosecuted. Very well— neither do we demand for ourselves, in the most extreme case, more than is demanded for the governments in this one.

The Duke of Cumberland is the rightful, undisputed heir to the throne of Brunswick. The King of Prussia has no more right to reign in Berlin than is claimed by Cumberland in Brunswick. Anything else that is wanted of him can only be laid claim to after Cumberland has taken possession of his rightful, legitimate throne. This the revolutionary German imperial government is forcibly preventing him from doing. Yet another revolutionary act.

And what is the position as regards the parties?

In November 1848 the Conservative Party did not hesitate to infringe the legality constituted in March of that year. ??? In any case, it accords only provisional recognition to the present constitutional state of affairs and would joyfully acclaim any feudal and ab- solutist coup d’état.

The Liberal Party of all shades participated in the revolution from 1848 to 1866, nor would it today allow anyone to deny it the right to counter the forcible subversion of the constitution with force.

The Centre ?*° recognises the Church as the supreme power transcending the state; a power, that is, which might, in certain circum- stances, make revolution a duty.

And these are the parties which demand of us that we and we alone out of all the rest should declare that we would in no circumstances resort to force, would submit to any pressure, any outrage, not only when these have a veneer of legality — are legal in our opponents’ view — but also when they are downright illegal.

No party, unless it was lying, has ever denied the right to armed resistance in certain circumstances. None has ever been able to renounce that ultimate right.

But once the debate begins to turn on the circumstances in which a party may reserve that right, the game is already won. The whole thing becomes progressively more nonsensical. Particularly in the case of a party that has been declared illegal] and is thus actually reduced by higher authority to resorting to revolution. And such a de- claration of illegality, having been made once already, might recur any day. To demand an unconditional statement of this kind from such a party is utterly preposterous.

Nor, for that matter, have the gentlemen anything to worry about. The military position being what it now is, we shall not go into action so long as we have a military power against us. We can bide our time until that military power ceases to be a power against us. Any revolution prior to that, even a victorious one, would bring to power, not ourselves, but the most radical elements of the bourgeoisie and/or petty bourgeoisie.

In any case, the elections have shown that we can expect to gain nothing by submissiveness, i.e. concessions to our opponents. It is only defiant resistance that has gained us their respect and turned us into a power. Only power is respected and only so long as we remain a power will your philistine respect us. Anyone who makes concessions and is therefore no longer a power, he will despise. You can let them feel the iron fist in the velvet glove, indeed you must. The German proletariat has become a powerful party — may its representa tives be worthy of it!

Your

(Time for the post.)