Engels’ Introduction to the 1895 Edition [1]¶
Core Argument¶
In his 1895 introduction to The Class Struggles in France, Engels reflects on the evolution of proletarian strategy, acknowledging that the revolutionary expectations of 1848 were historically premature. The text, he explains, was Marx’s first attempt to apply the materialist conception of history to contemporary events, tracing political conflicts back to their economic roots. Engels concedes that analysing current history is fraught with difficulty—statistics lag behind events, forcing the method to treat economic conditions as constant. Yet Marx’s analysis of 1848–49 proved remarkably accurate, passing two crucial tests: his later study of the 1847 crisis and subsequent prosperity shattered illusions of imminent revolution, and his 1852 pamphlet on Bonaparte’s coup required few revisions. The work first formulated the demand for society’s expropriation of the means of production, distinguishing scientific socialism from utopian communism.
History, Engels argues, disproved the expectation of a decisive proletarian victory; capitalist development on the Continent remained insufficiently mature. The fighting methods of 1848—the barricade and surprise attack—had become obsolete. Instead, the proletariat must proceed through gradual, tenacious struggle. The period of revolutions from below had ended; revolutions from above, orchestrated by Bonaparte and Bismarck, cleared the way for capitalist development and national unity, thereby preparing the ground for the proletariat’s advance. The Paris Commune of 1871 again demonstrated that the working class was not yet ready to rule.
The Franco-German War and the Commune, however, marked the beginning of the proletariat’s most powerful rise. Military transformation—conscription, mass armies, advanced weaponry—ended the Bonapartist war period, made peaceful industrial development secure, and drove poorer classes toward socialism through soaring military costs and taxation. The annexation of Alsace-Lorraine created chauvinist splits among the French and German bourgeoisie but united their workers. The centre of the European labour movement shifted from France to Germany, where Social-Democracy grew rapidly: from 102,000 votes in 1871 to 1,787,000 by 1890—over a quarter of all votes cast. The state had exhausted its resources; the workers were at the beginning of theirs.
The German workers provided a new weapon: the effective use of universal suffrage. Previously dismissed as a governmental trick, the franchise was transformed into an instrument of emancipation. It allowed workers to count their numbers, measure their strength, restrain untimely hesitation, agitate among the masses, and use parliamentary platforms to break repressive laws. This successful utilisation of universal suffrage created an entirely new method of proletarian struggle. The bourgeoisie and government feared legal action far more than illegal rebellion. The old-style street fight behind barricades had become antiquated; since 1848, armies had grown, armaments had become incomparably more effective, and cities were laid out in wide streets favouring military firepower. The barricade had always had a moral rather than material effect; now even that was lost.
Engels concludes with a striking irony: revolutionaries now thrive better through legal means than illegal ones, while the parties of order are destroyed by the very legality they established. If revolutionaries refuse to be drawn into street battles, the parties of order will be forced to break their own legality, which is fatal to them. The German Reich, like all modern states, is a product of contract; if the constitution is broken, the Social-Democracy will be free to act as it pleases. Drawing a parallel with the early Christians, Engels notes that Emperor Diocletian’s anti-Christian laws failed; seventeen years later, Constantine made Christianity the state religion. The anti-revolutionary fanatics of today, he warns, will only demonstrate their impotence.