Gu Hailiang:Engels’ Preface Specific-Style in His Late Years and Its Imbedded Wisdom

2021-03-08 12:00:03 | Author:Gu Hailiang

Abstract Engels, in his late years, claimed insistently the right to writing the preface or introduction to the major works by Karl Marx for publication or reprint. His nearly twenty such prefaces or introductions serve as a unique academic style, revealing how Engels examines and interprets Marx’s Theory, by which Engels has created a preface specific-style of his own. This preface specific-style sticks to the two “great discoveries” in Marx’s quintessential system of thought. Prominently, it unfolds a real picture of the history of Marx’s thought, which helps to lay down the academic norm and theoretical basis for the exploration of Marx’s Theory in terms of its historical development. Engels attaches utmost importance to the mastery of the quintessence in Marx’s thought and advocates its scientific spirit and theoretical value. With the preface specific-style, the reader is able to see the ideological orientation and the fundamental purpose in the proletarian revolution as well as its strategic thinking, demonstrating Engels’ profound wisdom and his theoretical appeal in his late years. 

 

Keywords: Engels in his late years, Marx’s thought, preface specific-style; embedded wisdom

 

After the death of Karl Marx in 1883, Engels, by writing the preface or introduction to the works by Marx for publication or reprint, presented to the reader again the quintessence, theoretical characteristics and historical evolution of Marx’s Theory, contributing tremendously to the development of Marxism. His nearly twenty such prefaces or introductions serve as a unique academic style, revealing how Engels, in his late years, examines and interprets Marx’s Theory, by which Engels has created a preface specific-style of his own. This preface specific-style achieves three purposes as follows: first, it highlights the significance of the development history of Marxism as well as the quintessence of Marx’s Theory while exploring the historical background, theoretical nature and core essentials in the major works by Karl Marx; second, it highlights the scientific and revolutionary aspects of Marxism and its theoretical system while interpreting the theories and the scientific spirit in Marx’s major works; third, it ushers in a new era for understanding the connotations of Marxism in the modern times while interpreting Marx’s Theory freshly and in line with the time.

At this special time of the two hundredth anniversary of Engels’ birth, examining the implications, features and essence of his preface specific-style formed late in his life, can help to reveal how Engels sticks to and promotes Marxism in his late years.   

      Part I   Engels’ Determined “Right” and the Implications of his Preface Specific-Style

In May 1885, Hellman Schlietter, head of German Social Democratic Press, wrote a letter to Engels, in which he talked about his plan to publish some short works by Marx. Engels appreciated it, and at the same time he set three requirements. First, in Collected Short Works of Karl Marx due to be published, they should not “count in” such international documents as Marx’s “Declaration of the International Workingmen’s Association”, “The Civil War in France”, “The General Council’s Report to the Hague Congress” and etc., which are all concerned with the First International, nor should they “count in” such major works as Communist Manifesto. Engels claims “to own the right to write introductions to these works.” From Engels’ point of view, without his introduction, it is hardly possible to comprehend the ideological essence and historical significance of Marx’s works. Therefore, writing prefaces for Marx’s works becomes Engels’ indisputable “right”. Second, though those works of Marx to be published are pretty short, the texts need careful examination. Engels holds that the articles written by Marx in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung “can hardly be separated from mine, because we have made a division of labor”. Therefore, it is quite necessary to do textual research on the particular backgrounds and theoretical orientation of these articles. This is why Engels has good reason for owning the “right” to write “introductions” for Marx’s works. Third, Collected Short Works of Karl Marx should follow the internal logic of the historical development and theoretical evolution of Marx’s thought. Engels believes that the texts in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung are composed “15 to 20 years” later than the relevant texts in the period of the First International. It “may not be right” if they put Marx’s articles of different historical backgrounds and with different theoretical themes together into one volume without any specific text introduction for each article. In October 1885, Engels once again reminded Schlietter, “I am sure that the articles in Neue Rheinische Zeitung cannot be reprinted without attaching the true story behind.” According to Engels, it is difficult to understand the true meaning and theoretical essence of Marx’s thought without knowing its particular historical background. And only with the help of the “preface” or “introduction” is the reader able to associate Marx’s major works with their corresponding periods of history, particular theories, and social situations. These three requirements actually amount to the internal rule governing Engels’ preface specific-style.

Engels held fast in his late years the “right” to writing the preface or introduction for reprint and new edition of Marx’s major works and regarded it as his sacred cause. In June 1891, Engels said in his letter to Kautsky, “I once allowed our party to publish some of Marx’s short works in the form of single volumes, which could go without any notes and preface. And they cannot proceed beyond this. Publishing Marx’s complete works is my duty in the future, and I can’t allow it to be taken away from me bit by bit in advance.” For the reprint and new edition of Marx’s major works, Engels insisted on writing the preface and notes, by which he would like to embody the scientific principle and spirit behind Marx’s works. He did not allow others to “take away” this “right” from him.                         

1895 was the last year in Engels’ life. On January 1 of this year, in a letter to Kugelman, Engels stated his intention of publishing his and Marx’s “early works”, that is, “their works written before 1851”. Engels particularly mentioned his “long-cherished wish”, that is, “to collect all the newspapers of the Rheinische Zeitung released in 1842, in order to find Marx’s articles”. On April 5, in a letter to Charlie Fischer, head of the German Social Democratic Party, Engels approved of the compilation of three articles written by Marx in Rheinische Zeitung into a volume, and agreed to add “my preface and (possibly) some notes” to it. The three articles mentioned by Engels are: “Proceedings of the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly: Debates on Freedom of the Press and Publication of the Proceedings of the Assembly of the Estates”, “Proceedings of the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly: Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood”, and “Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel”. A few days later, in his letter of April 15 to Fisher, Engels again talked about the importance of these three articles in the historical development of Marx’s thought. He said, “I have more than once heard Marx say that it is his research work on the forest theft law and the situation of farmers along the Mosel River that impels him to shift his attention from pure politics to economic relations, and thus to socialism.” Engels agreed to publish this pamphlet temporarily under the title of Karl Marx’s First Work, and also agreed to reveal in its publication and promotion that the pamphlet was edited and prefaced by F. Engels. Three days later, Engels said in another letter to Fisher, “in addition to the articles in the Rheinische Zeitung, I have found another article written by Marx in the same period which exposes the rough and violent conduct in book and newspaper censoring, and it can be reprinted along with the other articles.” This particular article refers to Marx’s “Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction”, which was included in Anecdotes of Modern German Philosophy and Politics published in 1843. In the study of the historical development of Marxism, these four articles are recognized as the principal literature for the exploration of Marx’s early thoughts.

In the letter of May 9, 1895 to Merlin, Engels said, “I agree to your suggestion that only the two long articles in the Rheinische Zeitung and the full text of the article on Communism (and the article from Anecdotes of Modern German Philosophy and Politics) be published. Engels also mentioned that “in order to write the preface”, he hoped that Merlin could provide some information “outlining” the procedure and the contents of the Mosel “Justification”. Engels was not able to complete the “preface” and possibly the “notes” for the pamphlet, for he passed away three months later, on September 27, 1895.

Engels made tremendous efforts to reprint Marx’s works in his late years, and at the same time, he invested a great amount of energy in publishing Marx’s first-edition works. In addition to editing and publishing the second and third volumes of On Capital, Engels also published the German version of The Poverty of Philosophy, Critique of Gotha Program, Class Struggles in France, 1848--1850 and etc. He wrote the “preface” or “introduction” for each of Marx’s new-edition work. The fact that Engels was still editing Karl Marx’s First Work at the last moment of his life and intended to write its preface serves as good evidence, showing the great role that Engels’ preface specific-style plays in demonstrating the significance and profound implication of Engels’ upholding and developing of Marxism in his late years.

In the 12 years from 1883 to 1895, the following 16 prefaces or introductions can embody Engels’ preface specific-style:

the preface to the 1883 German edition of Communist Manifesto in Jun. 1883;

the preface to the third German edition of Volume 1 of On Capital in Nov. 1883;

the preface to the first German edition of The Poverty of Philosophy, in Oct. 1884;

the preface to the third edition of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, early in 1885;

the preface to the second volume of On Capital, in Jul. 1885;

the introduction to the third German edition of Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne, in Oct. 1885;

the preface to the English version for the first volume of On Capital, in Nov. 1886;

the preface to the 1888 English version of the Communist Manifesto, in Jan. 1888;

the preface to the fourth German edition for the first volume of On Capital, in Jun. 1890;

the preface to Critique of Gotha Program, in Jan. 1891;

the introduction to The Civil War in France, in Mar. 1891;

the introduction to the 1891 single edition of Wage Labor and Capital, Apr. 1891;

the preface to the 1892 Polish version of Communist Manifesto, Feb. 1892;

the preface to the 1893 Italian version of Communist Manifesto, in Feb. 1893;

the preface to the third volume of On Capital, in Nov. 1894;

the introduction to Class Struggles in France, 1848--1850, in Mar. 1895.

    In these reprinted or new editions of Marx’s works, Engels’s preface specific-style manifests itself conspicuously.

 

Part II  Preface Specific-Style and Marx’s Two “Great Discoveries”

The preface specific-style embodies a unique academic style, revealing how Engels examines and interprets Marx’s Theory, the most prominent part of which is Engels’ adherence to and mastery of the essence of Marx’s thought.  

On March 17, 1883, at Marx’s funeral, Engels summed up Marx’s two “great discoveries”: one is the “discovery of the laws of the historical development of human society”; the other is the “discovery of the modern capitalist mode of production and the special operating laws in the bourgeois society that it produces”. These two great discoveries are corresponding to the two discoveries of historical materialism and surplus value theory, which are discussed in Karl Marx and Anti-Duhring, two books written by Engels previously. The two “great discoveries” point directly to the essence of Marx’s thought. 

The preface specific-style is theoretically based on Engels’ interpretation and mastery of the two “great discoveries”. In June 1883, Engels wrote the preface to the third German edition of Communist Manifesto, which was the first preface written by Engels after Marx’s death. In this brief preface, Engels “once again states clearly” the “fundamental ideas” that go through Communist Manifesto. Engels points out, “the economic production of every historical period and the social structure thus established as a result of it are the political and spiritual basis for the particular period. Therefore, all history (since the disintegration of the original public ownership of land) is the history of class struggle, that is, the struggle between the exploited class and the exploiting class, between the ruled class and the ruling class at each stage of social development. And the struggle has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer liberate itself from the class (the bourgeoisie) that exploits and oppresses it if it does not manage to free the whole society from exploitation, oppression and class struggle once and for all.” Engels held fast to the “fundamental principle” of historical materialism and he revealed the nature and the inevitability of class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

In January 1888, in the preface to the English version of Communist Manifesto, Engels once more emphasizes the “fundamental principle” of historical materialism in Communist Manifesto, and expounds how the “fundamental principle” is developed. Engels believes that he and Marx “have gradually approached this principle in the years before 1845. My book, The Condition of the Working Class in England, is the best illustration of how far I have personally achieved in this regard. But by the time I met Marx again in Brussels in the spring of 1845, he had had a matured idea about this principle, and explained it to me in almost as clear sentences as I used above.” After Marx’s death, Engels emphasized this “fundamental principle” again and again, as it is the core of Communist Manifesto and essence of Marx’s thought. Engels’ adherence to and development of Marx’s “great discoveries” have become the starting point as well as the theoretical bedrock for his preface specific-style.

The theoretical cornerstone for the preface specific-style also justifies Engels’ defense and development of Marx’s surplus value theory, and his sublimation of the scientific spirit of Marx’s two “great discoveries.”

After Marx’s death, the rumor that the so-called Marx’s surplus value theory is the “plagiarism” of Rodbertus’ “rent” theory began to spread. In particular, some bourgeois economists tried to exaggerate this nonsense as an “indisputable fact”, fueled by Rodbertus’ “specter”. In February 1884, Engels wrote a letter to Kautsky, saying that “in the preface to the German version of The Poverty of Philosophy, I would like to expose the myth about Rodbertus.” In March of the same year, Engels once again mentioned in his letter to Zasulich, “I must write a preface to the German version to refute the nonsense held by those reactionary socialists that Marx has plagiarized Rodbertus in his On Capital, and to prove that, on the contrary, Marx had criticized Rodbertus in Poverty before Rodbertus wrote his Overproduction and Crises. In September 1884, Engels had a new understanding of the necessity of refuting Rodbertus’ nonsense. “It’s wonderful that all the bourgeoisie are now gathered around Robertus,” he said, “We can’t expect anything better than that.”

Early in 1885, Engels wrote the preface titled “Marx and Rodbertus” to the first German edition of The Poverty of Philosophy, in which he strongly accused Rodbertus of his nonsense. In Engels’ view, Rodbertus just boasts that he first discovers the rent theory, but actually, this rent theory is nothing but the application of Ricardo’s labor theory of value. While applying the theory, Rodbertus repeats what his predecessors have already said, and at the same time, he also repeats the mistakes his predecessors have made. For example, Rodbertus “accepts blindly the economic concepts of labor, capital, value as what economists have roughly and superficially conveyed to him, without much thinking and careful examination of what these concepts actually mean. Therefore, he has not only cut off all the roads for his further development, …but he has also built the road to Utopia for himself. The only difference between Rodbertus and his predecessors is that the former has proposed a “social reform program”, which involves the support and protection from Prussian government and which insists on keeping the system of labor exploitation.” And Rodbertus is in favor of “national socialism” as taken by Prussian bourgeois Junkers.

In “Marx and Rodbertus”, Engels mainly criticizes some viewpoints in Rodbertus’ Toward an Appreciation of our Economic circumstances and does not condemn the absurdity of the nonsense that Marx has “plagiarized” his work, but Engels does that in the preface of May 1885 to the second volume of On Capital.

In the preface to the second volume of On Capital, Engels comes up with two pieces of “decisive evidence”. One can be traced to the history of Marx’s economic thinking. In the 15 years beginning from 1843, Marx engaged himself in the study of political economy while knowing nothing about Rodbertus’ works. Around 1859, when Marx came into contact for the first time with some works by Rodbertus, he “is already done not only with his outline for his political and economic criticism, but also with the most important details”. In particular, he “has already found exactly where ‘capitalist surplus value’ comes from, and how it is ‘created’ as well.” With the historical facts in the development of Marx’s economic thinking, only those who have “extraordinary” imagination will believe the nonsense of Marx’s “plagiarism” of Rodbertus. The other can be traced to the history of economic thought since Adam Smith. The theory that Rodbertus boasts as discovered first by himself is at best something that repeats some thoughts held by some distinguished economists after Adam Smith. What’s more, it is quite possible that such repetition can lead to theoretical retrogression to a certain extent. Rodbertus regards a derivative of surplus value as surplus value and actually calls it “rent”, but the so-called “rent” is something very uncertain.

  Then, Engels speaks highly of Marx’s remarkable contribution to the “great discovery” of surplus value theories. This “great discovery” has triggered a revolution in economic science and laid the most solid foundation for Marxist political economy. We can see in Engels’ 1886 preface to the English version of the first volume of On Capital where he says that “every new theory in a science involves a revolution of its terminology”, that the “revolution of terminology” in surplus value theories in On Capital has presented before the reader fundamental differences between Marx and those political economists before him. “This fact is certain to revolutionize all economic theories and result in the key to understanding the whole capitalist production handed to the person who knows how to use it. Based on such thinking, Engels studied all the existing economic concepts and terms, just as Lavoisier examined the various established chemical terms while experimenting with oxygen in combustion.” The “revolution of terminology” represented markedly by surplus value theories shows the scientific and revolutionary charm of Marx’s political economy.

  The theoretical cornerstone for the preface specific-style is based on Marx’s two “great discoveries”. The preface specific-style reflects the essence of Marx’s thought, Engels’ mastery of the two “great discoveries”, and even the sublimation of the essence of Marx’s thought, making the preface specific-style theoretically outstanding.

Part III  The Preface Specific-Style and the Historical Reality of Marx’s Thought

The preface specific-style reveals Engels’ theoretical and academic style in exploring Marx’s Theory, and it unfolds a true picture of Marx’s ideological development.

The preface specific-style is very much concerned with the true ideological and historical development of Marx’s “great discoveries”. In the preface to the German version of The Poverty of Philosophy, Engels says that in the winter of 1846-1847, Marx “already made clear the fundamental characteristics of his new conception of history and his new economic perspective”. The core elements of the said conception of history and economic perspective actually refer to the two “great discoveries” of the materialist conception of history and the theory of surplus value. The Poverty of Philosophy contains Marx’s interpretation of these “fundamental characteristics of his new conception of history and his new economic perspective”. Engels’ appraisal is of the same nature as Marx’s own perspective. Marx also believes that the “decisive argument” in his ideological system is his scientific, though only argumentative, overview in The Poverty of Philosophy that he has offered for the first time.   

The preface specific-style is also concerned with the true historical formation of Marx’s major theories. At the end of April 1891, Engels prefaced the second edition of Wage Labor and Capital. Before that, in June 1884, for the publication of Wage Labor and Capital, Engels had already written a very brief preface, in which Engels gives an authoritative explanation for the completion of Wage Labor and Capital for the first time, saying that “this work has been published in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung in the form of a series of editorials since April 5, 1849. It is based on several addresses made by Marx at the German Workers’ Association in Brussels in 1847. The work is not fully published, for we can see the words “to be continued” printed at the end of the article in the newspaper No. 269. The Neue Rheinische Zeitung published Wage Labor and Capital separately for five times, after which Marx wanted to publish the work in a single volume, but he did not have his wish fulfilled. It was not until 1880 that Breslau published the single volume for the first time without Marx’s involvement. In 1884, with the intervention of Engels, Wage Labor and Capital was officially published in Hottingen, Zurich. Since then, Wage Labor and Capital has become an important text in the historical development of Marx’s thought as well as a classic text in the historical development of Marxism.

In the preface to the second edition, Engels tries painstakingly to show the imperfection of the “terms” used in Wage Labor and Capital, such as “sell labor” when it should be “sell labor-power”, which may cause “confusion” among workers. Engels mentions that Marx’s terms in Wage Labor and Capital are ones used before the establishment of the theory of surplus value. As for the “publication of up to 10,000 copies of the pamphlet, these terms cannot be retained as they are. Therefore, I must turn them into modern terms, with notes for clarification.” Engels wishes to raise the second edition of Wage Labor and Capital as high as On Capital.”

In the preface, Engels stresses that the “second edition” of Wage Labor and Capital is “exclusively for propaganda among workers”, in which case, even Marx himself “would certainly like to make his old exposition published in 1849 consistent with his new perspective”. In the second edition, Engels has also made “necessary modifications and supplements” on the premise of “entirely conforming to” Marx’s original idea. When the pamphlet was publicized to the workers, “it is no longer like the one written by Marx in 1849, but more or less like something written in 1891.”

It is worth noting that in the preface, Engels distinguishes between the need for exploring “the process of ideological development” and the one for “propaganda among workers”, and accordingly, he handles second editions and new editions of Marx’s works separately. When it comes to the study of Marx’s thought in terms of its “ideological formation”, as Engels says, “I will not even think of changing a single word in the texts of these works.” In this case, “reprinting these early works without any modification” is the basic academic norm for the exploration of Marx’s ideological history as well as the theoretical basis for the study of the developmental history of Marxism. The academic norm and theoretical basis expounded by Engels are also the important principles and basic characteristics of Engels’ preface specific-style.

In 1991, Engels wrote the preface to the new edition of Marx’s Critique of Gotha Program, which serves as an important text that reflects his preface specific-style. It is an important gesture showing how Engels justifies and develops Marx’s Theory in his late years.

In May 1875, when he finished his manuscript of Critique of Gotha Program, Marx only sent it to William Brack, leader of Eisenachers, for his “review” and did not make it publicly known. It was not until January 1891 that Engels published this work in order to counter the rising opportunism in Germany and to further eliminate the influence of Lassalleanism. In the preface to Critique of Gotha Program, Engels points out that Critique of Gotha Program, for the first time, clearly and powerfully displays Marx’s attitude towards Lasalle’s policies since he began to engage in the work of instigation. These policies are concerned with both Lasalle’s economic principles and his strategies.”

Engels believes that from the death of Lassalle in 1865 to 1891, “Lasalle has belonged to history for 26 years”, but Lasalle’s wrong ideas “have not been challenged by history”. The publication of Critique of Gotha Program “makes us realize that it is time we clarified and rebuked Lasalle’s attitude towards Marx.” There is the problem of “two-sidedness” in Lasalle’s theory, that is, “he puts what he has copied from Marx and his own arguments (which are often wrong) together and it is almost impossible to make a distinction between the two. Engels thinks that “my responsibility is to reveal the differences between Marx and Lasalle” and to “eliminate the myth about Lasalle once and for all.” Engels is determined to publish Critique of Gotha Program in order to attack Lassalleanism in the “internal history” of Marx’s thought and to clarify the major theoretical issues in the ideological history of Marx’s thought.

In the preface to Critique of Gotha Program, Engels writes particularly that for the publication of Critique of Gotha Program, “I would like to delete some sharp expressions and comments directed at individuals and replace them with ellipses while keeping the content unaffected. If Marx had wanted to publish this manuscript today, he would have done the same.” Looking back on the history, there are some places in the manuscript with a “very strong tone”, which is caused by two factors, “First, Marx and I were more closely connected with German workers’ movement than with any other country’s movement. Therefore, the blatant retrogression shown in the draft program makes us feel extremely indignant. Secondly, it was only two years after the closing of the International Conference of Representatives in Hague, and we were just engaged in the fiercest struggle against Bakunin and his anarchists, who held us responsible for everything that happened in the German workers’ movement. Therefore, we had good reason to believe that they would also regard us as the secret writers of this program. These fears have now disappeared, and so has the necessity of retaining the relevant expressions.” In the preface to Critique of Gotha Program, Engels inherits and carries forward Marx’s critical spirit, which not only dispels the dense fog of erroneous thoughts about the workers’ movement, but also shows the theoretical direction for the exploration of the historical development of Marx’s thought, providing the academic norm and scientific perspective for the study of the history of Marxism. The theoretical mode and academic style of Engels’ preface specific-style are embodied here once again.

Part IV  The Preface Specific-Style and the Methodological Essence of Marx’s Thought

While the preface specific-style reveals Engels’ theoretical mode and academic style in examining and interpreting Marx’s Theory, it gives more attention to expounding Marx’s thinking approach and to carrying forward the scientific spirit and theoretical features of Marxism.

The essence of the preface specific-style lies in advocating Marxism and carrying it forward with the advance of times, which involves theoretical as well as practical aspects that Engels always sticks to and diligently explores in his late years. In December 1886, Engels mentioned in his letter to Mrs. Wishnewski, that “our theory is not a dogma, but an illustration of the development process which includes a series of interconnected stages.” The “development process which includes a series of interconnected stages” mentioned here refers to the “development process” of the International Workers’ Movement beginning in the 1840s as well as the “development process” of Marx’s thought over the past 40 years. The internal logic in combining Marx’s ideological formation with the development of social reality, and in combining Marx’s Theory with the reality of workers’ movement, is to get rid of “dogmatic” comprehension of Marx’s thought, making the “development process” of the society the basis and condition of the theoretical “development process”.

In March 1895, Engels mentioned in his letter to Werner Sombart that although Marx has worked out the problem of the “logical intermediate link” in the transformation of value into production price, he does not stop there. If one wants to engage in the study of Marx’s thought, he/she must keep it in mind that “Marx’s world outlook is not a doctrine, but is concerned with approach. What it offers is not a ready-made dogma, but a starting point for further research and the approach to such research.” Marx’s thought is a theoretically open system which develops with the advance of the times. What Marx’s thought provides is by no means a fixed and unchanging “dogma”, but “a starting point for further research and the approach to such research”.

In 1891, Engels wrote in the Introduction to the second edition of Marx’s The Civil War in France that in The Civil War in France, Marx “reveals the historical significance of the Paris Commune succinctly, powerfully and incisively. He renders it extremely vivid, which is beyond the reach of all the numerous papers on this issue later on.” However, seen from the new height of the times, Marx’s “basic idea” in The Civil War in France requires necessary “supplementary interpretation”. As Marx emphasizes in the Introduction, “If we review, 20 years later, what the Paris Commune did in 1871 and its historical significance, we will find that there should be some supplement to the narration in The Civil War in France.”

In the Introduction, the most important “supplement” made by Engels is to the “basic idea” of “smashing the old state power and replacing it with a new and truly democratic state power” in Chapter III of The Civil War in France. Engels says, “The Commune realizes at the very beginning that once the working class has got the ruling power, it can no longer use the old state machinery for administration. In order not to lose the ruling power it has just won, the working class should, on the one hand, eradicate all the old oppressive machines that have been used against the working class, and on the other hand, ensure that it is able to guard against their representatives and officials, that is, to declare that these people can be replaced at any time.” At the same time, “in order to prevent the state and state organs from becoming public masters instead of remaining public servants”, the Paris Commune adopts two “reliable approaches”: one is to “hand over all administrative, judicial and national education positions to those elected by universal suffrage, and to stipulate that the electors can replace the elected at any time”; and the other is that “for all public servants, regardless of their positions, they are to be paid the same amount of wages as other workers.” Twenty years after the Paris Commune Revolution, Engels’ supplement to the “basic idea” and to the core of The Civil War in France shows Engels’ profound understanding of the essence of the approach applied by Marx and highlights the ideological orientation and fundamental purpose of Engels’ preface specific-style as well.

In the Introduction, based on the development reality of the capitalist society at that time, Engels gives a new interpretation of the “state power in a new and truly democratic country” in his comparative study of the nature of state power in the capitalist country of America, which makes the orientation and the purpose of his preface specific-style clearer. Engels points out, “in comparison with other countries, we find that politicians in the United States constitute a more privileged and powerful group of people than in any other country. In this country, each of the two major political parties that take turns in power is manipulated by these politicians who turn politics into business, profiting from the seats in the federal and state congresses, making a living by advocating for their own party, or getting jobs as a reward after their party’s victory.” Engels arrives at the conclusion that “it is in the United States that we can most clearly see how the state power, which is supposed to serve only as a tool for the society, can break away from society and become independent.” In the Introduction, Engels does not regard the existing conclusions about the concept of a country in The Civil War in France as “ready-made dogmas”, but instead as “the starting point for further research and the approach to such research”. And he draws a new conclusion which agrees with the development of the times and the reality of workers’ movement. Engels’s new interpretation of the nature of state power of America, especially his discussion about the developing trend and characteristics of political power, is still crucial and enlightening. This is the most valuable ideological resource and spiritual strength in Engels’ preface specific-style in his late years.

In 1893, the Italian version of Communist Manifesto was officially published. Facing the “new historical epoch” of the 20th century, Engels says in his preface to the Italian version of February of that year, since the publication of Communist Manifesto, “the capitalist system has led to rapid development of large industries all over the world, and at the same time has created large members of proletariat who are closely and powerfully united. Thus, as the Manifesto says, the capitalist system has got its own grave digger. If we do not restore the independence and unity of each nation, there will be neither the international union of the proletariat nor the harmonious and voluntary cooperation for the common goal of all nations. Let us ask ourselves a simple question: under the political conditions before 1848, could there have been a joint international movement involving Italian workers, Hungarian workers, German workers, Polish workers and Russian workers?” Engels summarizes these new trends of “international union of the proletariat” and “the harmonious and voluntary cooperation for the common goal of all nations” in European proletarian revolutionary movement. In Engels’ view, Communist Manifesto is a “declaration” of the “new era” as well as a “declaration” for the proletariat to enter into a “new historical epoch”.

At the beginning of 1894, The New Epoch, a weekly belonging to the Italian Socialist Party, invited Engels to write a few words for the “new age in the future”. Engels felt that it was almost impossible to predict ideologies for the new age in a few words without falling into utopian socialism, or what he could write would be mere rhetoric. However, he used a maxim from Communist Manifesto to complete this task, associating it with the new century. The maxim goes like this, “What will replace the old bourgeois society where there are classes and class antagonisms will be such a commonwealth, where the free development of each individual is the condition for the free development of all people.” By taking this maxim, Engels exalted the ideological implication of Communist Manifesto for the new century, and sublimated the theoretical level of the preface specific-style for the new century as well.

Part V  The Preface Specific-Style and Engels’ Wisdom in His Late Years.

Engels’ preface specific-style reveals his theoretical mode and academic style in his examination and interpretation of Marx’s Theory, which are also embedded in the theoretical basis of the proletarian revolution and its strategic thinking, showing the wisdom and theoretical appeal of the preface specific-style.

After the death of Marx, Engels made a series of new expositions on proletarian revolution and its strategies in view of the new situation of social conflicts and class contradictions in some Western European capitalist countries. In 1884, Engels pointed out, “any political party, if it tells the truth, will admit that it has never denied having the right to carry out armed resistance under certain circumstances. No party has ever given up this extraordinary right.” While we uphold and will never give up such a “principle”, we should also recognize that “under the current military situation, where the armed forces still go against us, we shall not fight against the army. We can wait until the armed forces are no longer against us.” At this time, we shall use the “legitimate” election as a new “weapon”. However, “elections have shown that we can get nothing if we obey or compromise with our adversaries.” Therefore, while we can employ the “legal” way of election, we cannot give up the “fierce struggle”. Only by using persistent resistance can we make people respect us and thus we can become a powerful force, which “can make people feel the iron hand through the velvet gloves.” If the proletarian party wants to carry out “legitimate” struggles, it has to fight vehemently, it should have the power and strategy to make people feel the iron hand through the velvet gloves”, and it should have the courage, confidence and wisdom of “never giving up this extraordinary right.”

Marx published a series of articles for Political Economy Reviews in Neue Rheinische Zeitung in 1850, which were concerned with the 1848 revolution and the relevant events that followed. In January 1895, directed by Engels, these articles were compiled into a pamphlet, entitled Class Struggles in France, 1848--1850. In February 1895, Engels confirmed in his letter to Lafargue that this pamphlet “cannot be published without an introduction”, and that the “Introduction” will be “quite long” because, in addition to summarizing the events that have taken place since then, it should also explain why we hoped that the proletariat would win the recent and final victory, why this was not achieved, and to what extent the later events changed our view at that time.” From February to March of 1895, Engels wrote an “Introduction” to this new edition of Marx’s work, which was the last one among Engels’ prefaces or introductions to reprints and new editions of Mars’s works in his late years. It is also the most important text that embodies profoundly the wisdom and theoretical appeal of Engels’ preface specific-style.

The German Social Democratic Party expressed its “concerns” about Engels’ strategical thinking in the Introduction. On March 6, 1895, Fisher was entrusted by the Executive Committee of the Party to write to Engels, asking Engels to revise the Introduction on the ground that the Reichstag was just discussing about the so-called anti-subversion draft law at that time. The “concerns” mentioned by Fisher relate to Engels’ point of view that they could not abandon social revolution, or give up violent revolution completely, or let go of the leadership of any revolution in their legal struggles. In his reply to Fisher of March 8, Engels said, “I try my best to take into account your grave concerns. Although I would like to try to understand them, I still can’t understand where your worries come from.” At the same time, Engels also criticized harshly the wrong perspective of the Executive Committee of the Party, saying, “I can’t tolerate you swearing to be absolutely loyal and abiding by laws under any circumstances, even the ones that have been violated by its framers. Put it simply, you would like to be loyal to the policy of giving the left face after the right one is slapped.” Engels said firmly, “if you advocate complete abandonment of violence, you will get nothing in return. No one will believe it, nor will any political party in a country go so far as to give up the right to take up arms against illegality.” Engels declared solemnly that the original manuscript of the Introduction has been affected by such modifications, and he “refuses to take any step further” in revising the original.

On March 30, the editorial entitled “How to Carry Out the Current Revolution” in Vorwarts distorted to a great extent Engels’ viewpoints by taking a few sentences out of context from the Introduction, saying that “today’s have-nots should stay calm no matter what provocations they confront, and will not return to the old-fashioned revolution with barricades. In this respect, they have got a more revolutionary means to gradually infiltrate socialist ideas into the decaying capitalist society.” Upon reading the editorial, Engels wrote to Kautsky immediately, saying, “Vorwarts published some excerpts from my Introduction without informing me in advance, and in such an editorial, I become a gentle and mild person who abides by law in any case. I very much hope that the Introduction can now be published in full text in Die Neue Zeit so as to eliminate such a shameful impression.” From 1894 to 1895, the magazine Die Neue Zeit, No. 27 and No. 28 of Vol. 2 in its 13th year, serialized the Introduction, but still retained the modifications made by Engels in the single volume of the Introduction.

The Introduction is an important work on strategies applied to proletarian party’s revolutionary struggles, which was written by Engels based on the new situation of capitalism and the new experience of workers’ movement in the early 1890s. The Introduction embodies Engels’ wise thinking in his late years.

Such wisdom is found first in Engels’ profound analysis of the significance of democracy and of universal suffrage. At that time, democracy and universal suffrage could better enable the political party of the working class to spread their stand, especially to publicize their attitudes more widely and deeply among the masses. As a “brand-new way of struggle” for the working class, universal suffrage can play a role which would “make the bourgeoisie and the government fear more the legitimate activities of working-class political parties than their illegal activities, and fear the results of the election more than the outcome of the uprising.” The proletariat must change its old idea that universal suffrage is only a “trap” set for workers and a “deceiving tool” of the government. The proletarian party should take the advantage of democracy and universal suffrage to get well-prepared for future revolutionary struggles.

Such wisdom is also found in Engels’ profound account about improving qualities of working class and accumulating revolutionary strengths in legitimate struggles. He holds that the proletarian revolution is a great struggle participated by the majority and for the interests of the majority. The proletarian party must arouse the majority’s revolutionary awareness so as to engage themselves voluntarily into the struggle. “The strategy for the proletarian revolution should be concerned with improving the theoretical literacy and revolutionary awareness of the working class through the legitimate struggle, thereby accumulating their strength constantly.” If the Social Democratic Party of Germany can legitimately do a good job in mobilizing and organizing the masses over a long time while maintaining the current good momentum, “by the end of this century, we will be able to win the hearts of the majority of the middle class, of petty bourgeoisie and of small peasants, and develop into a decisive force in Germany, to which all the other forces will have to submit, whether they like it or not.”

Such wisdom can be found in Engels’ deep and thorough exploration into why the proletariat can never give up their “right to revolution.” Engels stresses that the proletariat should have the right to revolution and be prepared to engage in violence. Proletarian political parties in other countries should never give up their right to revolution just because the German Social Democratic Party has made use of the universal suffrage. He points out, “it is self-evident that our foreign comrades have not given up their revolution right. We should keep it in mind that the right to revolution is the only true “historical right”, on which all modern countries, without exception, have been founded.

Such wisdom can also be found in Engels’ profound strategy of establishing a “decisive ‘commando’” for the proletariat. Engels believes that the chief task of the proletarian party is to constantly accumulate revolutionary strength to such extent that it is beyond the control of the existing ruling system, and “to keep the increasingly powerful commando ready for the day of the decisive battle.” In terms of revolutionary strategy, Engels says that before the last moment of the decisive battle, the proletariat party must ignore any provocation of the ruling class, so as not to lead workers to places where “gunshots are heard and flying arrows are seen”, which will only result in the weakening of their strength and other unnecessary losses. Instead, the party should gather strength and get prepared for the decisive battle.

The Introduction interprets the strategy used in the proletarian revolution in a fresh way, and it summarizes what Engels has experienced in the process of proletarian revolution in his life and shows his theoretical sublimation. The new interpretation also embodies Engels’ wise thinking and theoretical charm, which are most adequately reflected in his preface specific-style.

 

Hailiang Gu, Emeritus Professor from Peking University.