Engels: On Engels’s So-called “Political Testament” in His Later Years: Clarification of a Historical Case

April 2022

Zhao Yulan is a professor of the School of Marxism at Renmin University of China, Researcher at the Collaborative Innovation Center for the Study of Marxism in China in the 21st Century

Summary

In the Introduction to Karl Marx’s Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, published in 1895, Engels highly praised the important role and positive significance of parliamentary struggle, which aroused widespread debate among later generations. Bernstein used the Introduction to attribute Engels to the source of his revisionist views. Through the investigation of the writing background and the original draft of the Introduction, as well as the analysis of Engels’ struggle strategy in the 1870s, this article believes that Engels always determined his struggle strategy according to the specific struggle situation, and his views in his later years did not change; Engels was not the source of revisionism, on the contrary, he was Bernstein’s severe critic in its embryonic stage. The spirit of seeking truth from facts and starting from reality in the Introduction is the real legacy that Engels left to future generations.

In 1895, five months before his death, Engels wrote an introduction to the first published single volume of The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, entitled “Introduction to Karl Marx’s Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850” (hereinafter referred to as “Introduction”).

In this text, Engels highly praised the important role and positive significance of legal struggle, especially parliamentary struggle, which aroused extensive discussion among later generations. In particular, E. Bernstein called this article Engels’ “political testament” and further concluded that the revolutionary means of class struggle are no longer necessary, and capitalist society will grow into socialist society peacefully. This raises a major theoretical question for us: Did Engels abandon the ideas of proletarian class struggle and violent revolution in his later years and fundamentally turn to the pacifist line? Furthermore, did Engels become the real source of Bernstein’s revisionism? All these issues must be thoroughly clarified and fully explained.

1. Self-reflection in the Introduction

At the end of January 1895, Richard Fischer, the publishing manager of the German Social Democratic Party’s official newspaper Vorwarts, wrote to Engels, saying that Vorwarts Publishing House intended to publish a series of articles on the French Revolution of 1848 published by Marx in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Political and Economic Review as a separate volume, and asked Engels to write an introduction for it. Engels readily agreed and wrote the introduction for this pamphlet from February 14 to March 6. In the introduction, Engels pointed out that “the methods of struggle in 1848 are outdated in all respects today”. As a result, the issue of the transformation of the proletariat’s struggle methods became the core theme of Engels’ discussion.

First, a simple surprise attack could not achieve the transformation of society. Engels pointed out that Europe began to gradually revive from the middle of 1848, and reached full prosperity in 1849 and 1850. With this period of prosperity, the capitalist mode of production truly developed in many European countries. Correspondingly, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were truly formed as the two major classes. Engels pointed out that since the proletariat had to advance slowly and gradually seize positions, this shows how impossible and unrealistic it was to achieve social transformation through a revolution or a surprise attack in 1848.

Second, the political practice of the German Social Democratic Party opened up new areas for the struggle of the working class. Engels listed one by one the impressive achievements made by the German Social Democratic Party in the three-yearly elections of the Imperial Parliament since the implementation of universal suffrage in 1866. He pointed out that German workers “gave comrades from all over the world a new weapon – one of the sharpest weapons, showing them how to use universal suffrage.” In Engels’ view, universal suffrage gave the proletariat a brand-new way of struggle, which enabled it to win significant benefits for itself within the scope of the rule of the bourgeoisie.

Third, the old-style uprisings, especially street battles, have become outdated.

Engels pointed out that before 1848, if the insurgents wanted to win in street fighting and street battles, they could at most influence and shake the morale of the army morale, and thus win the victory of the uprising by having the soldiers defect or take a passive attitude. But after the 1848 revolution, this moral influence had disappeared. Engels specifically mentioned that the streets newly built after 1848 were long, straight and wide, and were not suitable for street battles at all. Therefore, under the new historical conditions, the old-style uprisings, street battles and other struggle methods are obviously no longer appropriate.

It can be seen that Engels made a profound reflection on the changes in the conditions and methods of struggle after the 1848 Revolution in the Introduction, and the expressions he repeatedly used in the article, such as “we were wrong”, “our wrong view at that time”, “we were wrong”, etc., also showed Engels’ serious and sincere self-criticism. However, these self-reflections in the Introduction were used by Bernstein to prove his revisionist views. We can’t help but ask, did Engels really advocate a fundamental revision of the strategy of armed struggle and violent revolution in his later years and completely turn to the pacifist line of parliamentary struggle?  

In other words, did Engels encounter a reformist change in his later years?

Please Download for Full Text