London, 30 December 1884 

Dear Bebel, 

I hasten to reply to your letter. 

Friend Singer would seem to have digested only such of my re- 
marks as accorded with his own views: one soon learns how to do this 
in business where it may sometimes help, but in politics as in science 
one should, after all, learn to take an objective view of things. 

To begin with, I told Singer that I had not yet by any means given 
the matter adequate thought (my attention having been drawn to it 
only the evening before by the Sozialdemokrat),?*? and that what 
I was saying could by no means be regarded as my final verdict. 

Next, I went on to say that, under certain circumstances and on certain 
conditions, it might be admisszble to vote for it, i.e. if the -government 
were to undertake to accord to the workers the same state aid it was 
now prepared to accord to the bourgeoisie. In particular, that is, the 
leasing of state-owned land to workers’ cooperatives, etc. Since 
I know very well that the government will not do so, this is another 
way of saying that those who would like to vote for it should be 
shown how they can vote against it with a semblance of decency and 
without doing violence to themselves. 

I further told Singer — and this seemed news to him — that in par- 
liamentary life one may often find oneself in the position of having to 
vote against something which one would privately like to see carried. 

Well, yesterday I wrote to Liebknecht about other matters and 
took the opportunity of giving him what was now, after long reflec- 
tion, a considered view of the case.* In many respects it tallies almost 
word for word— get him to read you that bit of my letter some 
time — with what you say, although your letter did not arrive until 
this morning. Where I diverge from you is, briefly, as follows: 

1. You are above all a party versed in economics. You, or some of 
you, have at various times made a great show of the party’s superi- 

* See previous letter. 

ority in this field, yet as soon as you were confronted in practice with 
your first economic question, you fell out — over protective tariffs.3*? 
But if the same thing is going to happen each time an economic ques- 
tion crops up, what is the point of having a parliamentary group 
at all? 

2. On principle, you ought to vote against it. I told Liebknecht so 
plainly enough. But suppose the majority want to vote for it? In that 
case, the only thing to do is to persuade them to attach such condi- 
tions to their vote as will excuse it, at any rate to the extent that no 
odium attaches to them in the eyes of Europe, as would otherwise in- 
evitably happen. Those conditions, however, are, and can only be, 
such that the government cannot agree to them, i.e. that the majority 
of the parliamentary group, should they attach those conditions to 
their vote, will not be able to vote for it. 

Needless to say, I could never have considered an unconditional vote 
in favour of presenting the bourgeoisie with working men’s pennies. 
But neither, for that matter, could the cardinal question— the dis- 
ruption of the parliamentary group— have been envisaged in this 
context. 

To my mind, your best way of dealing with all such questions, if 
you want to take account of the voters’ petty-bourgeois prejudices, is 
to say: ‘On principle we’re against it. But since you wish us to make 
positive proposals and since you maintain that these things would 
also be of benefit to the workers, which we contest in so far as any- 
thing more than a microscopic advantage is concerned — well and 
good. You must place workers and bourgeoisie on an equal footing. 
For every million you take from the worker’s pocket and give to the 
bourgeoisie, directly or indirectly, you must give the workers a mil- 
lion; the same applies to loans made by the state.’ I. e. more or less as 
follows (only by way of an example and without regard for the par- 
ticular form it would have to assume for Germany, since I am too 
little acquainted with the details of existing legislation): 

1) The granting of subventions and advances to workers’ coopera- 
tives, not for the purpose, or not so much for the purpose, of starting 
up new businesses (which would be no better than Lassalle’s propo- 
sal, with all its deficiencies) as, in particular, in order to 

a) take on lease and farm cooperatively state-owned land (or other 
types of landed property); 

b) purchase for their own or the government account and operate 
as cooperatives factories, etc., which, at a time of crisis or, perhaps, 

due to bankruptcy, have been shut down by their owners or have oth- 
erwise come on the market, and thus pave the way for the gradual 
transition of all production to cooperative production. 

2) Preference to be given to cooperatives over capitalists and the 
latters’ associations in all public contracts, and on the same terms; i. e. 
as a general principle, contracts for public works to be accorded 
wherever possible to cooperatives. 

3) The removal of all legal obstacles and difficulties that still stand 
in the way of free cooperatives, i.e. above all the reinstatement of the 
working class within the common law — pitiful though this may be — 
by the repeal of the Anti-Socialist Law *’ which, after all, is the ruin 
of all trade associations and cooperatives. 

4) Complete freedom for trade associations (TRADE UNIONS) and their 
recognition as legal persons with all the latters’ rights. 

By demanding this, all you demand is that equal consideration be 
accorded to workers and bourgeois alike; and if gifts to the bourgeois 
will allegedly boost industry, will not gifts to the workers boost it far 
more? Without any such quid pro quo, I fail to see how a Social Demo- 
cratic parliamentary group could vote for anything of the sort. If you 
confront the people with such demands, the electorate, too, would 
soon stop pestering you about state aid for industry in the shape of 
gifts to the bourgeoisie. All these are matters which could be initiated 
here and now and actually set in train within the year, being obstruct- 
ed only by the bourgeoisie and the government. And yet, as things 
now are, these are important measures whose impact upon the work- 
ers would be a very different affair from that made by steamship sub- 
sidies,**? protective tariffs, etc. And the French are demanding 
essentially the same. 

But now for something else which has only just come to light. ‘The 
outcome of the division will, as likely as not, be determined by the So- 
cial Democrats. And what utter asses you would look in the eyes of 
the whole world if this business of donations to the bourgeoisie were 
to be the work of your votes! And without any quid pro quo! I really do 
not know what, in that case, I should tell the French and the people 
over here. And what a triumph for the anarchists, who would say 
exultantly: ‘There you are—they’re out-and-out philistines!’ 

I shall go into the other matters another time, since I am anxious 
that you should not for a moment be in doubt as to my views on this 

point. I trust that the change in your business affairs °** will above all 
be beneficial to your health. With all good wishes to you and your 
family for the New Year. 

Your 
F.E. 

That there won’t be enough money is clear as day. And another 
thing I told Singer was that anyone who votes for it must, if he is to be 
consistent, also vote for colonies. As regards the point about money, 
see my letter to Liebknecht.*