Friedrich Engels to George Shipton in London, Bridlington Quay, 15 August 1881; draft. Manuscript preserved at the IISG (Karl Marx / Friedrich Engels Papers, inv. K 1507-1508, images 4-5), transcribed from the digital facsimile by the Escuela de marxismo, 2026 (double reading and collation with the image); 3 of the 599 words of the final text (0.5 %) remain uncertain, each explained in a note. Written in English. Diplomatic transcription: spelling, capitals and punctuation as in the manuscript; underlinings in italics; deletions as text where legible, otherwise [ilegible]; interlinear additions inserted where marked, with a note; [?] after an uncertain reading. Traducción al español
D. Mr Shipley1 Bridl[?]2 Quay Aug 15/81.
I cannot make it out how you could so strangely misunderstand Mr. K's article. To the first passage you objected because State Interference was objected to by went against the grain of3 " many & prominent men in the Unions." Of course it does, because they are at heart plain Manchester School men & as long as their opinions of such4 are taken into a/c, no working class paper is possible. But my addition to the passage in question must have convinced you that the State interference of5 which Mr. Kautsky spoke here alluded to6, was was such, & such only, as has been in England the law of the land for years: factories & workshops' acts, & nothing further: things not objected to by even your &[?]7 prominent men."
As to the second passage, Mr. K. says: an international regulation of the war of competition is as necessary as that of open warfare; we demand a Geneva Convention for the workpeople of the world. The "Geneva Convention" is an agreement entered into by the various Governments for the protection of wounded & ambulances in battle. What therefore8 Mr K. asks for demands[?]9, is a similar agreement between the various Governments for the protection of the workpeople not of one State only, but of all, against overwork especially of women & children. How you can make out of that10 an appeal to the workpeople of the world to meet in a Convention of delegates at Geneva, I am utterly at a loss to understand.
If11 you had understood the drift of the article, you must have at once seen that here was a question proposal12 of an immediately practical nature, so easy of execution that one of the existing governments of Europe (the Swiss Government) had been induced to take it in hand; that the proposal to equalize the hours of labour in all manufacturing countries by making factory & workshops legislation a matter of international State agreement was one of the greatest immediate interest of to the working people, Especially to those13 of England who, besides the Swiss, are the best protected of all against overwork, & therefore has are exposed to an unfair competition on the part of Belgian, French & German workpeople whose hours of work are much longer. Instead of that, you
You will own that the occurrence of such misunderstanding on your part too cannot at all encourage me to alter my resolution. As to the Hirsch article, I do know Mr Eccarius & only too well for being a direct traitor to the cause & it will be utterly impossible for me to write for a paper which opens its columns to him.
But[?] Moreover, I do not see any progress. The L. St. remains the same mysterious[?] Compo[ilegible] [ilegible] of vehicle of the most various and14 mutually contradictory views on all political & social questions, which it was, perhaps unavoidably, on the first day of its existence, but which no it ought no longer to be by this time, if there was an under-current among the british working class tending towards emancipation15 from the liberal Capitalists. Such an undercurrent not having shown itself by up to16 now, I must conclude it does not exist. If there were unmistakeable signs of its existence, I might make an extra effort to assist it. But I do not think that one column a week, surrounded by drowned as I might say amongst the remaining multifarious views opinions17 represented in the L. St. could do anything towards producing that current it18.
And as I told you, I had resolved to stop writing after the Tr. U. Congress, because of want of time; so whether I wrote a few articles more till then, would make no difference.
So, waiting & hoping for better times, in this I remain
Faithfully yours
F. E.
So in the manuscript: after “Shi” a looped p, “le” and y; there is no “ton”. The addressee is George Shipton, under whose name the IISG files the draft. ↩
B, r, i, d and an l ending in a loop, without a full stop: “Bridl.” or “Brid.” (Bridlington). ↩
“went against the grain” written above the deletion; “of” higher still, after a connecting stroke, followed by loose quotation marks. ↩
“of such” written above the line, between “opinions” and “are”. ↩
The stroke of the deletion begins at “which”, so “of” is left standing, although the sense requires it to be cancelled. ↩
“here alluded to” written above the line. ↩
A low sign at x-height, shaped like Engels's “&” (as in “many & prominent” above); it may also be a low opening quotation mark. ↩
“therefore” written above the line, with a caret before “Mr”. ↩
Written above the deleted “asks for”: looped d, e, m, a, n, d, raised s; a middle stroke descends a little (“expands” or “expounds” are less likely). ↩
“you can make” is enclosed in curved brackets, with a stroke that runs below and round “out of that”: apparently signs of transposition (“How out of that you can make”?), not an underlining. ↩
This whole paragraph, the last on page 1, is cancelled with three long diagonal strokes. ↩
“proposal” written above the deleted “question”. ↩
“Espe-” is blotted out and “cially” struck through; “to those” written above, with a cross under the comma after “people”. ↩
“vehicle of the most various and” written above the deletion; “and” a little higher. ↩
“emancipation” is retraced in heavier ink, but not struck through. ↩
“up to” written above the deleted “by”. ↩
“opinions” written above the deleted “views”. ↩
“it” written above the deleted “that current”. ↩