Karl Marx 1878
Written: about September 24, 1878;
First published: in Russian, in Marx Engels Archives, Vol. I (VI), 1932, pp. 389-400;
First published in original: Karl Marx-Friedrich Engels: Briefe an A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, K. Kautsky und Andere. I. [1870-1886] Moscow-Leningrad, 1933, 515-517;
Source: "Marx to Count zu Eulenburg," New Masses, May 9, 1944, Volume 51, No. 6 p. 16;
Translated: A. Landy;
Transcribed: by Zdravko Saveski, 2025.
If we take the first part of the sentence, it only expresses a tautology or a stupidity: if the development has a `goal,' final goal,' these `goals,' etc., are 'goals' and not the character of 'peaceful' or `unpeaceful' development. What Eulenburg really wants to say is: the peaceful development towards the goal is only a stage which is to lead to the violent development of the goal and this later transformation of the 'peaceful' and the 'violent' development lies, with Mr. Eulenburg, in the very nature of the goal aspired to. The goal in this case is the emancipation of the working class and the upheaval implicit in it (transformation of society). An historical development can remain 'peaceful' only so long as it is not opposed by any violent obstacles on the part of the rulers of society at the given time. If, for example, the working class in England or the United States were to win a majority in Parliament or Congress, it could remove the laws and institutions obstructing its development by legal methods, and this only to the extent that social development reveals such obstructions. And yet the 'peaceful' movement could turn into a 'violent' one by the revolt of those interested in maintaining the old status: if they are suppressed by violence (as the American Civil War and French Revolution) then it is as rebels against the 'legal' power.
But what Eulenburg preaches is violent reaction on the part of the rulers against the development which is in a `peaceful stage' and, to be sure, in order to prevent later `violent' conflicts (on the part of the aspiring social class); the battle cry of the violent counter-revolution against the actual 'peaceful' development; actually, the government is attempting to suppress violently a development distasteful to it, but legally unassailable. This is the necessary introduction to violent revolutions. It is an old story, but it is eternally new.