Editor's note: In his later years, Engels did believe that new changes had taken place in capitalism, negated some of his original theoretical views, and made new explorations and reflections on the tactics of the proletarian revolutionary struggle. However, Engels did not have any "subversive" changes to the original textual revisions; some of the criticisms and negations of his early ideas were criticisms and negations of the "humanistic socialist" viewpoint from the standpoint of scientific communism, not the other way around; Engels affirmed that the proletarian party could use universal suffrage to carry out a legitimate struggle, but considered it only a tactic and a means, emphasizing the need to recognize parliamentary democracy as a form of bourgeois rule and to adhere to the "dual theory" of legitimate reform struggle and violent revolution "One-handed theory" emphasizes that the ultimate goal of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is the realization of communism.
In 2020, the 200th anniversary of Engels's birth will be commemorated in various forms throughout the country and even the world. One of the questions that necessarily entails in carrying out such a memorial is: Do we commemorate Engels as a communist or Engels as a so-called "social democrat"? For for a long time, it has been repeatedly proposed that In his later years, Engels had abandoned his early communist position and turned into a social democrat. At the same time, they highly appreciated this "transformation" and tried to use the founders of communism to "no longer believe" in communism, in order to prove that their anti-communist and anti-Marxist positions were correct. Their method of negating Marxism and communism became mainly in the name of Marx, especially Engels. Thus, for these people, the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of Engels's birth is nothing more than a commemoration of Engels as a so-called "social democrat" and of Engels's "deviation" and "abandonment" of his original views. Therefore, we commemorate Engels today, clarify the distortion of Engels's thinking in his later years, criticize the "theory of antithesis of Engels's ideas before and after" or "two Engels theories", and return engels's Marxism to the "second violinist" of Marxism, the true face of the great communist.
The 12 years between Marx's death in 1883 and Engels's death in 1895 are generally considered to be Engels's later years. During these 12 years, Engels wrote and gave speeches, which are considered to be Engels's thoughts in his later years. The main basis for those who believe that Engels became a social democrat in his later years is some of the literature of Engels in his later years. Chief among them are these three documents: five separate "prefaces" to the republication of the Communist Manifesto (hereinafter referred to as the "Manifesto") after Marx's death; the "Appendix to the American Edition" written in 1886 for the publication of The Situation of the Working Class in England in the United States; and the third is the Introduction to the Book of Karl Marx's Class Struggle in France from 1848 to 1850, written on January 30, 1895.
Let's focus on these three documents to see how we should view Engels's late thinking.
I. In his later years, Engels made new explorations and reflections on the tactics of the proletarian revolutionary struggle
In Engels's later literature, it is not difficult to find words and phrases in this regard, and we shall look at the relevant statements in the last two documents mentioned above.
In the "Appendix to the American Edition" written in 1886 for the publication of The Condition of the Working Class in England in the United States, Engels bluntly stated: "The book presented to English-speaking readers in their native language was written more than forty years ago. At that time the author was still young, only twenty-four years old, so the book bore the imprint of the author's youth, reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of his youth; but neither the advantages nor the disadvantages made him blush. The translation of this book into English was not at all initiated by the author. [1] It is hardly necessary to point out that the general theoretical views of the book, philosophical, economic, and political, are not entirely consistent with those of mine today. There was no modern international socialism in 1844, and since then it has developed thoroughly into science, first and foremost and almost exclusively because of Marx's labor. My book is just one stage in its embryonic development. Just as the human embryo reproduces the gill arc of our ancestor fish at the earliest stages of its development, traces of modern socialism from one of its ancestors, the origin of German philosophy, can be found everywhere in this book. For example, the book emphasizes the argument that communism is not a purely partisan doctrine of the working class, but a theory aimed at liberating society as a whole, together with the capitalist class, from the narrow confines of existing relations. This is true in the abstract, but in practice it is absolutely unhelpful, and sometimes worse. ”[2]
In his book Introduction to the Class Struggle in France, 1848-1850, written on 30 January 1895, Engels fully affirmed the struggle and use of universal suffrage by the working class. He praised the German Social Democratic Party for "giving the comrades of the world a new weapon, one of the sharpest weapons, showing them how universal suffrage should be used". He also very much agreed with the french Marxist programme: "The right to vote has been replaced by them ... From what has always been a tool of deception to a tool of liberation"[4]. Engels also enumerated specifically the benefits of suffrage for the working class, such as "the unexpected and rapid growth of the number of votes confirmed periodically, which strengthens both the confidence of the workers in victory and the fear of the opponents"; "gives us precise information on our own strength and the strength of the various hostile parties, thus giving us a unique yardstick for measuring the moderation of our actions"; "it gives us the unique means to reach the masses where the people are still alienated from us, And compels all political parties to answer our criticisms before the whole people and to defend their views and actions"; "It provides a forum for our representatives in the Reichstag, on which our representatives can speak to their opponents in Parliament and to the masses outside Parliament with much more authority and freedom than in the press and at assemblies", and so on.[5] Based on the advantages of the working class's use of universal suffrage, Engels concluded: "It has been found that among the state institutions which the bourgeoisie uses to organise its rule, there are also things which the working class can use to fight against these institutions themselves. "As a result, the bourgeoisie and the government fear the legitimate activities of the workers' party more than their illegal activities, and the electoral achievements more than the achievements of the uprising." [6] "The satire of world history has turned everything upside down. We are 'revolutionaries', 'subversives', but we have achieved much more by legal means than by illegal means and by subversive means. ”[7]
In the Introduction to The Class Struggle in France from 1848 to 1850, we also see from time to time the words of Engels: "History shows that we and all those who think like us are wrong. History clearly shows that the state of economic development on the European continent at that time was far from mature enough to eradicate capitalist production; history proved this with economic revolutions, which swept across the continent from 1848 onwards... All this is based on capitalism, which shows that this foundation had a great ability to expand in 1848. [8] "History shows that we were also wrong, revealing that our view at the time was merely an illusion." History goes further: it not only breaks our erroneous perceptions at that time, but also completely changes the conditions under which the proletariat wages its struggle. The methods of struggle of 1848, which today are obsolete in all respects, deserve to be explored here in more detail. ”[9]
Second, in his later years, Engels revised the original text, but it was not a "subversive" revision
We know that Marx and Engels introduced the Manifesto in 1848, and since then, the Manifesto has been reprinted. Over the course of 20 years, from 1872 to 1893, they wrote seven prefaces to different editions. The first two prefaces were co-written by Marx and Engels, and from the third preface onwards, since Marx "was already buried in the Highgate Cemetery, and grass had grown on his grave for the first time".[10] In the five prefaces written by Engels, some of the views in the Declaration were revised, requiring that the principles of the Declaration be applied at all times and at all times in the context of the historical conditions of the time, and that individual views in them were "inappropriate" and "outdated". For example, the first sentence in the Manifesto is that the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle. This formulation is clearly inaccurate, and Engels, in his preface to the 1883 German edition, added a parenthesis to the preface, in which he wrote: "Since the dissolution of the original communal ownership of land". Subsequently, in the 1888 English edition of the main text, Engelsted added the following footnote after "The History of All Present Societies": "This refers to the whole history that has been written down." [12] With such additions, this sentence in the original text becomes more accurate, rigorous, and more in line with the objective reality of social and historical development. Engels added to the Manifesto new theoretical achievements based on the practice of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in various countries. In the preface to the 1882 Russian edition, the question of how the Russian rural communes should be viewed was raised in the elaboration of how Russia should solve its historical tasks in accordance with the basic principles of the Manifesto. Engels asked, "Is the Russian Commune, of course the primitive form of public appropriation of land, which has been greatly destroyed, able to make a direct transition to a higher form of communist public appropriation?" Or, on the contrary, must it first go through the disintegration process that the historical development of the West has undergone? [13] His answer was: "The only possible answer to this question at present is that if the Russian Revolution becomes a signal of the proletarian revolution in the West and the two sides complement each other, then the present-day public ownership of land in Russia can be the starting point for the development of communism." [14] This assertion, which Engels added here to the Manifesto, was later fully confirmed by the October Revolution. In the preface to the Polish edition of 1892, Engels discussed the relations between the Polish proletariat and the national movement that developed with capitalism, stating: "The Polish aristocracy has neither been able to maintain Polish independence nor regain Polish independence... This independence can be won only by the young Polish proletariat and will be well maintained in the hands of the Polish proletariat. [15] Engels placed his hopes not only on the Polish proletariat for the national independence of Poland, but also on the international proletariat that this independence of Poland "is necessary for the harmonious cooperation of the nations of Europe" and that "the workers of all the rest of Europe need Polish independence as much as the Polish workers themselves." Engels's view of the historical role of the Polish proletariat in national independence and the significance of Polish independence for world harmony, expounded here, proved entirely correct in the subsequent historical process.
Although Engels modified, explained and supplemented the contents of the Declaration in these five preambles, on the premise of adhering to the basic principles of the Declaration and taking into account the changes of the times and the actual development of the workers' movement, it does not mean that the basic principles of the Declaration are fundamentally abandoned. In chronological order of the "preamble," we can see how Engels repeatedly affirmed the correctness of the basic principles of the Declaration in the five prefaces written in his later years, and how he affirmed the historical role of the Declaration.
In the preface to the German edition of 1883, Engels stated that "the preface to this edition can unfortunately be signed only by me", arguing that "there can be no amendment or addition to the Declaration"[16], but it is necessary to clarify the basic ideas of the Declaration again and to summarize "the basic ideas that run through the Declaration". This is "the economic production of every historical epoch, and the social structure which necessarily arises from it, is the basis of the political and spiritual history of that epoch; therefore, all history (since the dissolution of the primitive communal ownership of land) is the history of the class struggle, i.e., the history of the struggle between the exploited and exploited classes, between the ruled and the ruling classes, at all stages of social development; and this struggle has now reached a stage, namely, the exploited and oppressed classes (the proletariat), If at the same time the whole of society is not freed forever from exploitation, oppression and class struggle, it can no longer liberate itself from the class (the bourgeoisie) which exploits it and oppresses it. [17] This passage is the most precise and concise summary of the ideas of the Declaration, revealing the intrinsic connection between the fundamental principles of the Declaration. Engels not only considered "this idea" "entirely to Marx alone"[18], but in fact showed people that "this idea" contributed to the proletariat and to all mankind is immortal.
In the preface to the 1888 English edition, Engels explicitly regarded the Manifesto as the "common programme" of the proletariat of the whole world. "The history of the Manifesto reflects to a large extent the history of the modern working-class movement; it is now undoubtedly the most widely disseminated and international work of all socialist literature, the universally recognized common programme of millions of workers from Siberia to California." [19] In order to emphasize the correctness of the basic principles of the Declaration, Engels here quotes here the "basic ideas that run through the Declaration", which he summarized in the preceding preface, and specifically points out: "It seems to me that this idea must have the same effect on historiography as Darwin's theory of biology." ”[20]
In the preface to the 1890 German edition, Engels paraphrased the entire contents of the preface to the 1882 Russian edition, which he and Marx had last co-signed. Reaffirming the basic principle of the Declaration, which was emphasized in the preface to the Russian edition, "proclaiming the inevitable demise of modern bourgeois property".
In the preface to the Polish edition of 1892, Engels recounted with satisfaction that "it is worth noting, first of all, that the Declaration has recently become to some extent a measure of the development of large-scale industry on the European continent", and that "according to the number of copies of the Declaration issued in a given language, it is possible to judge not only with considerable accuracy the state of the labour movement in that country, but also with fair accuracy the degree of development of large-scale industry in the country".[21] Particularly, the reasons for the effectiveness of the Declaration are also discussed: "The more large-scale industry develops in a given country, the stronger the desire of the workers of that country to ascertain their position before the propertied class, the greater the socialist movement among the workers, and the greater the demand for the Declaration." [22] Engels made it abundantly clear that the function of the Manifesto consisted in satisfying the desire of the proletariat to know its true situation and historical mission, and that the more industry developed, the stronger this desire of the proletariat became, and thus the greater the demand for it.
In the preface to the 1893 Italian edition, Engels, on the basis of the practice of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat of 1848 and later, highly affirmed the judgment made in the Manifesto that the proletariat was the "gravedigger" of capitalist society. Engels said: "In the last 45 years the bourgeois system has given rise to the rapid development of large-scale industry in various countries, and at the same time to a large, closely united and powerful proletariat; and thus it has produced, as the Manifesto says, its own gravediggers. [23] He also predicted that the publication of the Italian edition of the Manifesto would be a "good omen" and that Italy would therefore "give us a new Dante to proclaim the birth of this new proletarian epoch". Without a firm conviction in the basic principles set forth in the Manifesto, it would be impossible to look so optimistically at the prospects of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in Italy, and indeed in Europe and the world as a whole!
There is no trace here of Marx and Engels abandoning the basic principles of the Manifesto. The view that Engels by his later years had overthrown the basic tenets of Marxism of his early years may be based on the text of engels' "Appendix to the American Edition" written in 1886 when he published The Condition of the Working Class in England in the United States. Engels concludes his Appendix to the American Edition by writing: "Deliberately not to delete many of the prophecies in this book, including the prophecies that the enthusiasm of the youth led me to boldly make that England would take place in the near future. It is astonishing not that so many of these prophecies are not in words, but that so many have been fulfilled, and that I have foreseen at the time (indeed, I have estimated the time too early) that the critical state of British industry which will be caused by competition in Germany, and especially in the United States, has now really arrived. At this point I can and have the responsibility to bring this book into line with the current situation. [25] We know that the "American Appendix" of Engels's The Condition of the Working Class in England is focused on reflecting on and revising the work he wrote more than 40 years ago, but even so, he emphasizes that the "bold" "revolutionary prophecies" of this work written 40 years ago "have been fulfilled so much", that the crisis state of capitalism "has now really arrived", and that he has the responsibility to make this work written 40 years earlier "conform to the present situation". That is to say, Engels felt it his duty to show that even though The Condition of the Working Class in England had been written more than 40 years ago, its basic ideas were "in line with the present". In this way, he affirms to the reader that the "many prophecies" of the work, written more than 40 years ago, are not "deleted" when they are now reprinted, and that they are "intentionally" done so.
Look again at how Engels's Introduction to The Class Struggle in France, written five months before his death, affirmed the basic positions and viewpoints of Marxism. At the beginning of this "introduction", Engels wrote the following paragraph: "The present reprint of this work is Marx's first attempt to explain a period of modern history from a certain economic point of view from his materialist point of view. In the Manifesto, this theory is used to give a rough account of the whole of modern history; in the articles published by Marx and me in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, this theory has always been used to explain the political events that took place at that time. The problem here, however, is to reveal an intrinsic causal link in the course of many years of development, which is crucial and typical for all of Europe, and which, in the author's view, reduces political events to the ultimate role of economic causes. [26] Explaining political events, ideologies, and social history in terms of certain economic conditions is the basic theory of historical materialism. Here Engels reiterates the basic theory of historical materialism as a basic method of study that he and Marx have repeatedly insisted on. Engels added, "What makes this book of particularly great significance is that, for the first time, here the formula which the workers' parties of all the countries of the world have unanimously used to express their demands for economic transformation, namely, that the means of production shall be vested in society." "Here for the first time a principle is expressed which makes modern workers' socialism distinct from socialism in all its forms, feudal, bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., and from the vague public ownership of property proposed by utopian and spontaneous workers' communism." "If Marx later extended this formula to the means of appropriation exchange, then this expansion is nothing more than a conclusion drawn from the basic principles"[27]. It can be seen that Engels affirmed the two basic principles of Marxism at the beginning of this "introduction": one is the principle of historical materialism that "social existence determines social consciousness", and the other is the communist principle of eliminating private property and returning the means of production to society. The affirmation of these two principles is undoubtedly an affirmation of Marxism as a whole.
In his later years, Engels criticized and repudiated the early "socialist socialism."
The nature of Engels's criticism and denial of early ideas is clearly understood in the "Appendix to the American Edition" he wrote when the Condition of the Working Class in England was published in the United States in 1886.
As noted above, Engels, in this "Appendix to the American Edition," makes a sharp criticism of a point in The Condition of the Working Class in England, written more than 40 years ago, that "the book emphasizes the argument that communism is not a purely partisan doctrine of the working class, but a theory aimed at liberating society as a whole, together with the capitalist class, from the narrow confines of existing relations." This is true in the abstract, but in practice it is absolutely unhelpful, and sometimes worse. [28] From this, it can be seen that Engels did abandon a kind of "communism" in the "Appendix to the American Edition" of The Condition of the Working Class in England, which he considered to be "correct in the abstract, but absolutely useless in practice, and sometimes worse".
So, what kind of communist theory is this? It is an abstract, supra-class, immature communist theory. Specifically, it is the above-mentioned interpretation of communism in The Condition of the Working Class in England. Engels believed that such a superclass understanding of communism had in fact been advocated by the bourgeoisie, but because the feudal class did not approve of it, it immediately "disappeared". "The French bourgeoisie of 1789 also declared that the emancipation of the bourgeoisie was the emancipation of all mankind; but the aristocracy and the monks refused to agree, and this assertion, though at the time it was an abstract historical truth for feudalism, soon became a purely self-inflicted amorous empty phrase that vanished in the flames of the revolutionary struggle." [29] In Engels's view, the seriousness of the problem lies in the fact that there are still people who are constantly trafficking in this supra-class communism. "There are still those who, from an impartial 'exalted point of view', preach to the workers a socialist which overrides the class interests and class struggle of the workers, which attempts to reconcile the interests of two competing classes with a higher humanity, who are the most vicious enemies of the workers, the jackals in sheep's clothing, if not novices who need much to learn." [30] Engels is very sharp in his words here, arguing that those who are still advocating this kind of supra-class humanistic socialism are "either novices who need much study" but "the most vicious enemy of the workers, the jackals in sheep's clothing".
Let us review Engels's relevant statement in The Condition of the Working Class in England in order to gain a more concrete understanding of the critique engels made here. Engels said: "In principle, communism is beyond the hostility between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; communism only recognizes the historical significance of this hostility in the present, but denies that it will still exist in the future; communism aims precisely to eliminate this hostility." So, as long as this hostility exists, communism considers that the anger of the proletariat against their slaves is inevitable, the most important lever for the workers' movement that is beginning; but communism goes one step further than this anger, for it is not just the cause of the workers, but the cause of all mankind. "And since communism transcends the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, it is easier to endorse than pure proletarian Constitutionalism by the fine representatives of the bourgeoisie (but such people are very few and can only be found in the growing generation)." [31] It can be seen from Engels's words in The Condition of the Working Class in England that, although it is not possible to match Engels's understanding of communism at that time with the "humanistic socialism" that he had popularized when he wrote the "Appendix to the American Edition", it did have a supra-class character. Engels said that his understanding of communism at the time was "correct in the abstract sense, but in practice it is absolutely unhelpful, and sometimes worse", and for good reason.
On the basis of negating his once immature communist theory, Engels made a "finishing touch" to the "mature communist" theory that he was adhering to. "Since the propertied classes not only do not feel any need for emancipation themselves, but are fully opposed to the self-emancipation of the working class, the working class must prepare and realize the social revolution alone." [32] This sentence can be regarded as the essence of Marxist communist theory, that is, the cause of communism is essentially the revolutionary cause of the proletariat, the main body of the cause of communism is the proletariat, and the proletariat can only rely on its own strength to fulfill its historical mission. As Engels transformed from a revolutionary democrat to a communist, his theory of communism also changed from a supra-class "humanitarian" theory to a scientific theory with the proletariat as the mainstay. In fact, less than three years after Engels wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England, in 1847, he went beyond that supra-class view in the Principles of Communism and expressed communism as "a doctrine on the conditions of proletarian emancipation".[33] A year later, in 1848, Engels and Marx went so far in their Manifesto: "The Communist Party does not neglect for a minute to educate the workers to be as clearly aware as possible of the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. ”[34]
Engels affirmed that the proletarian party could use universal suffrage, but recognized parliamentary democracy as a form of bourgeois rule
Engels affirmed that the representative work of using universal suffrage for the legitimate struggle was the Introduction to the book "Class Struggle in France, 1848-1850" written by Ka Marx before his death. It points out that while the proletarian party is actively participating in and taking advantage of parliamentary democracy, the bourgeois politicians who control parliament are "undermining the Constitution, exercising dictatorship and restoring autocracy" [35]. Engels said: "They can go through their anti-subversion laws, make them more cruel, turn all the criminal law into an eraser that can be pinched at will, and all they can get is to prove once again that they are powerless." "If they want to deal seriously with Social-Democracy, they have to take a completely different approach. Now the Social-Democrats are subversive by abiding by the law, and to oppose the subversion of the Social-Democracy, they can only use the subversion of the Order Party, that is, the subversion that cannot be broken by the law. [36] What Engels meant was that when parliamentary democracy became favourable to the proletariat, the bourgeoisie would immediately reveal its true colors, would change the laws, destroy the existing laws, and even impose dictatorship and restore it. Of course, in Engels's view, once the bourgeoisie breaks the law and restores despotism, it will not succeed. He told the bourgeoisie this way: "If one party breaks the contract, the whole contract will be annulled and the other side will no longer be bound", "If you break the imperial constitution, then the Social-Democracy will be free to deal with you at will." But what exactly it will do then,—— it may not tell you today. [37] Here Engels is telling the bourgeoisie, and in fact reminding the proletarian party that the bourgeois party will turn its face and destroy the existing laws at any time, and that the proletarian party must therefore be ready to "no longer be bound by its own obligations" and to deal with the bourgeoisie by any other means.
When Engels spoke of the legal struggle in the Introduction to the French Class Struggle of 1848-1850, Engels often used the restrictive word "now", that is, in Engels's view, the use of universal suffrage and the legitimate struggle were only feasible in the "now" situation. In issuing this "introduction", some of the leaders of the Social Democratic Party at the time demanded that Engels remove the restriction "now". Engels knew that this restrictive word carried a heavy weight here, and deleting it would mean turning the use of universal suffrage into a universal strategy for legitimate struggle. He explicitly said to these leaders: "You want to get rid of the word 'now', that is, to turn the temporary into permanent, to turn the relative into a strategy with an absolute meaning." I will not do this, nor can I do it, lest I bring eternal shame to myself. [38] Engels seems to have foreseen that removing the restrictive word "now" would lead to the "disgrace" of one to call him a reformist social democrat, and yet even if he did not delete the word, some would "disgrace" him. During this period, Engels repeatedly affirmed the "law-abiding" of the proletarian party and the use of universal suffrage as a temporary means of struggle. He has repeatedly pointed out on different occasions: "Abiding by the law – for the time being, to a certain extent, is still applicable to us, but it is by no means a compliance with the law at any cost, even if it is verbal!" [39] "The strategy I am talking about is only for Germany today, and there are significant strings attached. For France, Belgium, Italy, and Austria, this strategy cannot be adopted in its entirety. Even for Germany, tomorrow it may not apply. ”[40]
A careful analysis of Engels's affirmation of the parliamentary democratic system in the West will show that he never explicitly said that there were no "institutional limitations" and "class limitations" in this system, and that the working class never fully identified with the system. In an 1894 letter to Paul Lafarge, Engels expressed his wariness of Parliamentary democracy in the West. "For the proletariat, the republic differs from the monarchy only in that the republic is a ready-made political form in which the proletariat will rule in the future." "But the republic, like any other form of government, is determined by its contents; as long as it is the form of bourgeois rule, it is as hostile to us as any monarchy (leaving aside the form of hostility). It is therefore an unfounded illusion to regard it as essentially a form of socialism or to entrust it with the mission of socialism when it is still in the hands of the bourgeoisie. We can force it to make certain concessions, but we must not leave our own work to it; even if we are enabled to supervise it through a minority that is strong enough to turn itself into a majority in a day, we cannot do so..." [41] Engels here makes it clear that parliamentary democracy in the West is determined by its contents, that it is undoubtedly a form of rule by the bourgeoisie, that it is bound to be hostile to the proletariat. That is why the proletarian party cannot have unfounded illusions about it and cannot entrust it with its work.
Engels affirmed the use of universal suffrage to carry out legal struggles, but insisted on the "two-handed theory" of legitimate reform struggle and violent revolution, not the "one-hand theory"
First of all, it is necessary to understand whether Engels explicitly opposed violent revolution in his Introduction to the Class Struggle in France, 1848-1850 by Karl Marx. Some scholars, by distorting the quotations of Engels's relevant language, argue that Engels is opposed to violent revolution here. They quote Engels: "History shows that we too were wrong, and that our view at the time was merely an illusion." History goes further: it not only breaks our erroneous perceptions at that time, but also completely changes the conditions under which the proletariat wages its struggle. The methods of struggle of 1848, which today are obsolete in all respects, deserve to be explored here in more detail. [42] And the "method of struggle of 1848" may be considered by these scholars to be the violent revolution mentioned in the Manifesto, so that they can legitimately reject violent revolution as an "old" method.
Does Engels's "method of struggle of 1848", which he rejects as an "old" method, refer to "violent revolution as described in the Communist Manifesto"? In fact, one need only read the original text carefully to see that Engels is very clear here, referring to "barricade warfare that shows great heroism", such as "June 1848 in Paris", "October 1848 in Vienna", "May 1849 in Dresden",[43] Engels argues that, because the "conditions of the struggle" "have, after all, undergone fundamental changes", this "old-fashioned uprising", i.e., "the fortified street warfare that played a decisive role everywhere before 1848", is "now very obsolete". What Engels considered "obsolete" and denied it was only "barricade warfare" rather than the general "violent revolution". That is, Engels denied only a certain form of "violent revolution", not the whole violent revolution. In fact, Marx and Engels, as teachers of the proletariat, could not fundamentally oppose "violent revolution", and even when they affirmed the legitimate struggle, they repeatedly reminded people not to abandon the means of violence.
Let us look again at Engels, after writing The Introduction to the Class Struggle in France by Ka Marx from 1848 to 1850, he foresaw that someone would use this "introduction" to oppose violent revolution, and he had a "word first". Engels wrote this "introduction" at the request of Richard Fisher of the newspaper Forward. On March 8, 1885, the day after the introduction was completed, he wrote to this man: "I cannot tolerate your oath of loyalty to the law, to obey the law in all circumstances, even to those who have been violated by its compilers, in short, to be loyal to the policy of slapping the right cheek and then sending the left cheek over." "I don't think you'll gain a single benefit if you preach absolute renunciation of violence." No one would believe that, and no political party in a country would go so far as to give up its right to take up arms against wrongdoing. ”[45]
Not long after, the forward newspaper, the organ of the German Social-Democracy at the time, published an article in the form of an editorial entitled "How the Revolution Should Be Carried Out at present", which, without Engels's consent, quoted several passages from the "Introduction" he had just finished, and these paragraphs gave the impression that Engels had become a defender of "abiding by the law no matter what". Engels was very angry after reading this, and immediately lodged a strong protest with Liebknecht, the editor of the newspaper "Forward", expressing dissatisfaction with such a distortion of his views. In a letter dated 1 April 1895 "to Karl Kautsky", he wrote: "To my astonishment I find today that I have published an excerpt from my Introduction without notice to the Newspaper Forward, in which I appear as a peace-loving, law-abiding admirer in any case. In particular, I hope that the Introduction will now be published in its entirety in New Age in order to dispel this shameful impression. [46] Two days later, on 3 April 1895, he wrote to Paul Lafargue, saying, "Liebknecht has just made a wonderful joke with me. From the prefaces I wrote to Marx in several articles on France from 1848 to 1850, he quoted everything that could justify his tactics of peace and anti-violence, in any case. Recently, especially when Berlin is preparing for extraordinary law, he likes to promote this strategy. But the strategy I am talking about is only for Today's Germany, and there are significant strings attached. For France, Belgium, Italy, and Austria, this strategy cannot be adopted in its entirety. Even for Germany, tomorrow it may not apply. [47] What clearer language could reflect Engels's attitude toward violent revolution? Engels was definitely not a man who advocated "slapping the right cheek and then sending the left cheek over", and would never agree to renounce the act of violence and give up "the right to take up arms against wrongdoing". We cannot set aside These clear words and clear attitudes of Engels and one-sidedly interpret the "introduction" that is regarded as Engels's "political testament" to assert that Engels had a negative attitude toward violent revolution in his later years.
In his later years, Engels used universal suffrage as a tactic and a means, emphasizing its subordination to the ultimate goal of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, namely, the realization of communism
In his later years, even if Engels gave new thought to the tactics of the proletarian revolutionary struggle, all the changes in tactics were as means, and the objectives of the proletarian revolutionary struggle never changed. The Communist Manifesto, the French Civil War, and the Critique of the Gotha Programme are considered the "three famous chapters" of Marxism on the goals of communism. Those who argue that Engels, in his later years, while negating the means of violent revolution and at the same time denying the goals of communism, argue that Engels in his later years had in fact "broken with" the communist ideals of the "three famous articles."
Those who put forward Engels's theories of his later years, especially the "Appendix to the American Edition" of The Condition of the Working Class in Britain, are those who deny the communist ideal of the "three famous works of Marxism", completely disregarding historical facts. Engels wrote an "Appendix to the American Edition" for The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1886. In the following years, the communist manifesto, the French civil war, and the critique of the Gotha programme were repeatedly reprinted in Europe, and Engels prefaced several reprints of these three masterpieces. In these prefaces, Engels tells us very clearly that in his later years, Engels not only did not abandon these three famous communist doctrines, but also repeatedly declared his adherence to this doctrine.
In the preface to the English edition of the 1888 Manifesto, Engels, on the one hand, explicitly regarded the Manifesto as the "common programme" of the proletariat of the whole world, and on the other hand reiterated the conclusion laid down in the preface to the German edition of 1872: "However much the situation has changed in the last 25 years, the general principles expounded in this Manifesto are as a whole completely correct until now. "The Declaration is a historical document, and we no longer have the right to amend it." [48] This is a text written by Engels in 1888, emphasizing that the general principles set out in the Manifesto are "up to now perfectly correct", and even that there is no right to amend them. The belief that two years earlier, in 1886, Engels had abandoned the basic theory of the Manifesto was clearly untrue. Here Engels explains why this Manifesto is called the Communist Manifesto and not the Socialist Manifesto. In Engels's view, the main reason was that at that time, "socialism was a movement of the bourgeoisie, while communism was a movement of the working class." He also specifically added: "Later we never thought of abandoning this name. [49] Engels's statement that he "never thought of" abandoning the name communism is the best evidence that he and Marx never abandoned the basic principles of the Manifesto.
In 1891, berlin's "Forward" wanted to reprint Marx's "French Civil War", and Engelst wrote the "Introduction", that is, the "Introduction to The French Civil War" by Karl Marx. Engels wrote: "The Commune must at the outset admit that the working class, when it has gained domination, cannot continue to use the old state apparatus for its administration; that the working class, in order not to lose the domination it has just won, must, on the one hand, eradicate all the old apparatus of oppression which has been used against it, and on the other hand, ensure that it can guard against them by declaring that all its own representatives and officials can be replaced at any time without exception. "Lately, the philistines of Social-Democracy have been shouting for help in fright at the first hearing of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Gentlemen, do you want to know what the dictatorship of the proletariat looks like? Take a look at the Paris Commune. This is the dictatorship of the proletariat. [50] As is well known, the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is an important part of the doctrine of scientific communism, and it is pure nonsense that Engels reaffirmed the basic principles of the Paris Commune in 1891 and the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat, saying that Engels had abandoned the scientific communist doctrine of the French Civil War in 1886.
In 1891, Engels presided over the publication of Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme and wrote a preface, namely The Preface to Ka Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme. Here Engels regards the Critique of the Gotha Programme as the programmatic document of the entire international communist movement. Engels said: "If I delay the publication of this important — perhaps the most important — document on this discussion, then I will be guilty of concealment." [51] In a letter to Zorg on 24 October 1891, Engels expressed "satisfaction" with the fact that the Critique of the Gotha Programme had "played a full role". If Engels had abandoned the basic theory of the Critique of the Gotha Programme as early as 1886, why did he publish a single edition of the Critique of the Gotha Programme in 1891 and preface it? Why is the joy of the book playing such a large role in the international communist movement overflowing?
In order to further refute the absurdity that Engels had abandoned the communist ideal into a social-democratic view in his later years, we would like to cite two historical facts.
In 1890, when Engels was 70 years old, in order to pay tribute to the founder of communist theory and the leader of the international communist movement, the schools and organizations of the proletariat of the world congratulated Engels on his 70th birthday in various forms. Among them, the congratulatory letter of the National Committee of the French Workers' Party reads: "Dear Citizen: We wish you, together with Marx, as the theoretician of the international socialist movement to be attained soon, a man of fiery hearts and the enthusiasm of his youth, a long and healthy life, and I wish you, like the new Moses, a man of good health and longevity, of the proletariat entering the promised land of communism." [53] Engels replied to these congratulatory letters: "Please believe that the rest of my life and the remaining energies will be devoted to the struggle for the cause of the proletariat"[54], "I can only solemnly promise to actively serve the proletariat with the rest of my life"[55], "I will devote the remaining limited years and all the energies I have retained to the great cause of the international proletariat, which I have served for almost fifty years, as always." [56] This is the voice of the 70-year-old Engels, who shows no trace of abandoning his faith in communism and abandoning the revolutionary cause of the proletariat, but what we see is the heroism and dedication of this founder of communist theory and the leader of the international communist movement, "the old Man is determined to go a thousand miles" and "bows down to exhaustion and dies later"!
In January 1894, Engels published in Berlin the Collected Papers on International Issues of the People's State Newspaper (1891-1875) and wrote a preface. In the preface, Engelst articulates the difference between communism and social democracy and explains why he and Marx "everywhere do not call themselves social democrats, but communists." He said: "This is because the kind of people in the countries at that time who did not write on their banners the slogan of not transferring all the means of production to society at all called themselves social democrats. In France, for example, he said, "a social democrat is a democratic republican with more or less enduring but always elusive sympathy for the working class.". In Germany, "the laSallizers who call themselves social democrats" and "the authentic Lassalle-style state-sponsored production cooperatives remain the only thing officially recognized in their programme". Engels pointed out that in this case, "it is absolutely impossible for Marx and me to express our peculiar views in such a flexible name." Engels went on to point out in light of the present realities that, although "the situation is different now, and the word may be passable", "it is still imprecise for a party whose economic programme is not purely socialist in general but directly communist, and for a party whose ultimate political aim is to eliminate the whole country and thus to eliminate democracy". Engels concluded by admonishing all the proletarian revolutionaries who followed him: "The Party is developing, but its name remains unchanged. [57] Engels made it abundantly clear that even if the situation changes and the Party develops, the name of the "Communist Party" cannot be changed and the goal of communism cannot be lost.
At this point, we can solemnly point out that Engels did not abandon the communist position in his later years and became a so-called "social democrat". While stressing that the ultimate goal of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat is the realization of communism, he made a new exploration and reflection on the tactics of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat on the basis of new changes in capitalism, and proposed that the proletarian party could make full use of the form of rule of the bourgeoisie, combine legal struggle with secret struggle, parliamentary struggle and violent revolution, and promote the development of the communist movement in all countries of the world and ultimately realize communism.
exegesis:
[1] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 21, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 292.
[2] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 21, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 297.
[3] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 544.
[4] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, pp. 544, 545.
[5] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 545.
[6] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 545.
[7] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 552.
[8] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 540.
[9] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 538.
[10] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 9.
[11] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 9.
[12] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 31.
[13] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 8.
[14] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 8.
[15] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 24.
[16] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 9.
[17] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 9.
[18] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 9.
[19] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 13.
[20] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 14.
[21] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 23.
[22] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 23.
[23] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 26.
[24] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, pp. 26-29.
[25] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 21, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 298.
[26] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 532.
[27] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, pp. 536, 537.
[28] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 21, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 297.
[29] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 21, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 297.
[30] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 21, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 297.
[31] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1957, pp. 586, 587.
[32] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 21, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 297.
[33] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2012, p. 295.
[34] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 66.
[35] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 553.
[36] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 553.
[37] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 553.
[38] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 39, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1974, p. 402.
[39] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 39, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1974, p. 403.
[40] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 39, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1974, p. 436.
[41] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1995, pp. 734, 735.
[42] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 538.
[43] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 546.
[44] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 4, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, pp. 545, 546.
[45] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 39, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1974, p. 401.
[46] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 39, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1974, p. 432.
[47] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 39, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1974, p. 436.
[48] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 15.
[49] The Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 2, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 14.
[50] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 22, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, pp. 227, 229.
[51] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 22, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 105.
[52] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 38, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1972, p. 180.
[53] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 22, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 676.
[54] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 22, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 101.
[55] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 22, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, p. 100.
[56] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 22, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, pp. 309-310.
[57] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 22, Beijing: People's Publishing House, 1965, pp. 489, 490.
(Author: Chen Xueming, Professor, Center for Contemporary Foreign Marxism, Fudan University, School of Marxism, Fudan University; Source: World Socialist Studies, No. 11, 2020)