in Plauen near Dresden

Dear Bebel, London, 15 Nov. 89

I received your letter of 17 Oct. in the midst of the heaviest work on the 4th edition of *Capital* [Vol. I], which was no small matter, because all the quotations checked by Tussy for the English edition had to be compared again and the many scribal and printing errors corrected. Hardly finished with that, I had to get back to Vol. III, which must now appear quickly, for the little work by little Schmidt in Berlin on the average rate of profit shows that the lad has already puzzled out more than is good — it redounds to his highest honour. You see, I already have my hands full with all that; on top of that comes the necessity of following the international party newspapers and looking through the economic literature relating to Vol. III, and in places reading it right through again — you see, I am pretty well tied down and therefore you will excuse my not chatting with you as often as I should like.

As for the French, if you spent longer among them and got to know more about the way their peculiar modes of action operate, you would probably judge more leniently. The party situation there was one unheard-of in France, but in the end a favourable one: it was strong in the provinces, weak in Paris. What was at issue, then, was a victory of the solid provinces over the arrogant, domineering, snobbish and partly corrupt Paris (corruption is proved 1. by the rule of the corrupt leaders of the Possibilists there, 2. by the circumstance that, against this, successful opposition in Paris was possible only in the form of Boulangism). In addition, there were 2 leaderships in the provinces: one in Bordeaux for the trade unions, one in Troyes for the socialist groups organised as such. Thus there was lacking not only the traditional Paris leadership (and the possibility of such), but also a unified provincial leadership, or the intellectual capacity and general recognition of one.

That in this interregnum the state of affairs seemed to you highly confused and unsatisfactory, I quite understand. But that is only temporary. That the French, in this disorganisation of their own party, and after having made mistake upon mistake, none the less convened a congress in Paris, where all this had to be displayed before Europe, was however truly French. They rightly thought that this disgrace would be far outweighed by the fact that their congress represented Europe, while that of the Possibilists represented only a few sects.

That consideration for the momentary effect in public carries more weight there than with you and me and the mass of the German party is not a purely French fault. Here and in America it is exactly the same. That is the consequence of a freer political life, longer accustomed to. Not only does Liebknecht in Germany do exactly the same thing (one of the main reasons for our constant squabbling), but abolish the Anti-Socialist Law tomorrow and you will see how rapidly this lazy consideration pushes itself to the fore.

You are also mistaken, I believe, in concluding from your experiences of the Paris Congress that the workers are being pushed into the background by, let us say, the literati. On a Paris Congress this may appear to be the case, and all the more so as the impossibility of making oneself understood in foreign languages pushes the workers into the background there. In reality the French workers insist on full and downright formal equality with literati and bourgeois far more than those of any other nation, and had you read the reports I received on the agitation by Guesde, Lafargue, etc. during the last elections, you would probably judge otherwise.

That Guesde was not elected in Marseille was solely due to Protot (see enclosed proclamation). It is a general rule in France (because in the second ballot the number of candidates is not limited, but relative majority is decisive) that where there are 2 candidatures of the same party, the one who was in a minority in the first ballot withdraws. Protot was in that position, but he remained a candidate and spread the most infamous slanders about Guesde. Both were strangers to Marseille, but Protot was an old Communard and was supported by the followers of that loud-mouth Pyat — the previous deputy for Marseille. It is understandable that in the second ballot he obtained the 900 votes that would have carried Guesde into the Chamber. Boyer had chosen the best district of Marseille, he too had been elected there before, and he got through.

So now we have 7 men, by no means the best possible. They have elected Guesde their secretary and speech-factory. On the municipal council Vaillant, Longuet and others also form a separate group. Both groups will co-opt Lafargue, Deville, etc. and then form a central committee of the united (or federated) Blanquists and Marxists. Thus an organisation is gradually coming into being.

Besides these, 3 socialists have been elected as Boulangists and 2 as Possibilists, but the latter are of course excluded and can see how they get on.

That Auer is so ill grieves me too — yet better news is now coming in again. The relative weakness of the younger rising generation is also very vexing to me, also in the theoretical field. Now here is little Schmidt, who was here a year and in whom I would not have seen what is in him. If he remains as modest as hitherto — megalomania is today the most fatal and most general disease — he can achieve excellent things.

Here things are going very well. But also not on the simple, straight path of the Germans. That, of course, requires a people with such a theoretical disposition. Here there will still be blunders enough. But no matter, the masses are now in motion, and every new blunder will bring its lesson with it. So on we go, as the Lower Saxon says.

How are your wife and the future Doctor of Medicine?

Yours,
F. E.

2 Frieda Bebel