ENGELS TO PAUL LAFARGUE” 

AT LE PERREUX 

London, 5 July 1889 
My dear Lafargue, 

I quite appreciate that a congress consisting of delegates from an asso- 
ciation should hold private meetings for the discussion of matters that 
concern no one but its members and, indeed, this would as a rule be 
obligatory. But that a congress of working-class and Socialist delegates, 
convened in order to discuss general questions such as the 8 hours’ day, 
legislation on female and child labour, the abolition of standing armies, 
etc.,—that such a congress should close its doors to the public and delib- 
erate in camera, strikes me as unjustifiable. The presence or otherwise of 
the Parisian public is of little moment, although the interest your Party 
must take in the said congress should certainly suffice to ensure it some 
sort of audience. But even if the usual nincompoops were to be conspic- 
uous by their absence, the public meetings would, I opine, be none the 
worse. What we need is some reaction from the press, and for that to 
happen, publicity is essential. The press can only write about those things 
to which it is admitted. And the evening meetings devoted to oratory, in 
which French is obligatory as the only language the public understands, 
will hold out few charms for delegates who cannot speak it. After a 
lengthy afternoon or morning session they will want to look round Paris 

Letters ~ 1889 349 

rather than listen to incomprehensible speeches. Not that this should 
prevent you from holding one or two evening meetings in a large hall, but 
to close the doors for fear of it’s being said that the hall was half empty is 
to attach, I should say, an exaggerated importance to the Parisian public. 
The congress is being held for the benefit of the world at large, a fact 
which the absence or otherwise of a handful of Parisians does nothing to 
alter. You, who are for ever saying that the Possibilists carry no weight, 
and that it is you who represent the French proletariat, now tremble lest 
they may have a bigger audience than yourselves! 

For that matter, Bebel has written* saying that, for them, there can be 
no question of closed meetings and that, so far as the Germans are 
concerned, publicity is the only guarantee against renewed accusations 
of being a secret society. In the face of that argument, lesser considera- 
tions relating to the Parisian public and its possible abstention will prob- 
ably have to go by the board. 

He further says that 60 German delegates will probably be coming. In 
Germany, enthusiasm seems to be boundless. 

The Social Democratic Federation is well and truly in the shit. And 
who do you think has come to the rescue? Poor H. Jung, who this week 
declares in a letter> that our congress is of no consequence whatsoever, 
that it’s a HAPPY FAMILY of enemies, that Longuet is not a Socialist, 
that Jaclard is not a Socialist, that Liebknecht voted for Bismarck’s 
colonial policy (which is a lie), etc. Poor fellows, they are at their wits’ 
end. 

You doubtless know that Ferdinand D. Nieuwenhuis is going to 
propose a merger ‘in view of the fact that the agenda is the same for both 
congresses’. Since the agenda is not the same, I cannot see that anyone 
can vote for this motion. At all events I have written to Bebel,*”° point- 
ing out that things are no longer at the stage they had reached at the 
Hague?**; that since that time you have been authorised by them to 
convene your congress; that this was supported by the whole of Socialist 
Europe and that, in consequence, you were entitled to lay down new 
conditions for a possible merger; that the mania for unity may force the 
unionists to adopt a course ultimately leading to union with their 
enemies and separation from their friends and allies; and, finally, that 
there will be a host of minor difficulties. Indeed, in my opinion, there 

4 Bebel to Engels, 2 July 1889 — > H. Jung, ‘To the Editor of Justice’, Justice, Vol. 
VI, No. 286, 6 July 1889 

350 Letters ~ 1889 

will not be the slightest chance of a useful merger unless detailed condi- 
tions are hammered out between committees from both congresses, and 
are agreed by the latter. Otherwise the union will not last for more than 
a couple of hours. And if a solution is to be reached, time will be needed, 
which means that the merger, if it happens at all, could not be effected 
until things are nearly over. 

Your article went off to Russia yesterday, REGISTERED. 

What you tell me about the wine-growers of Champagne‘! is 
extremely interesting—the ruination of the peasant is now gathering 
speed, thanks to advanced capitalism! 

It is most fortunate that Liebknecht should be staying with Vaillant; 
I have strong suspicions that he will make another attempt to join forces 
with the ‘good elements’ among the Possibilists, going ‘over Brousse’s 
head’, as in March and April. 

A kiss to Laura from myself and Nim. 

Yours ever, 
F Engels