--- Title: Engels to George Shipton, Bridlington Quay, 15 August 1881 (draft) Description: Draft: Engels explains to Shipton how he misread Kautsky's article, refuses to write for a paper that opens its columns to Eccarius and confirms that he gives up writing the leading articles of The Labour Standard. Author: Friedrich Engels Date: 1881-08-15 URL: https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/cartas/originales/1881-08-15%20Engels%20to%20George%20Shipton --- *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](https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/cartas/1881-08-15%20Engels%20a%20George%20Shipton)* D. Mr Shipley[^n1] Bridl[?][^d1] 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 of[^a1] " 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 such[^a2] 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 of[^n2] ~~which Mr. Kautsky spoke~~ here alluded to[^a3], ~~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 &[?][^d2] 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 therefore[^a4] Mr K. ~~asks for~~ demands[?][^d3], 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 that[^n3] 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. If[^n4] you had understood the drift of the article, you must have at once seen that here was a ~~question~~ proposal[^a5] 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 those[^a6] 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 and[^a7] 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 emancipation[^n5] from the liberal Capitalists. Such an undercurrent not having shown itself ~~by~~ up to[^a8] 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~~ opinions[^a9] represented in the L. St. could do anything towards producing ~~that current~~ it[^a10]. 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. [^n1]: 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. [^d1]: B, r, i, d and an l ending in a loop, without a full stop: “Bridl.” or “Brid.” (Bridlington). [^a1]: “went against the grain” written above the deletion; “of” higher still, after a connecting stroke, followed by loose quotation marks. [^a2]: “of such” written above the line, between “opinions” and “are”. [^n2]: The stroke of the deletion begins at “which”, so “of” is left standing, although the sense requires it to be cancelled. [^a3]: “here alluded to” written above the line. [^d2]: A low sign at x-height, shaped like Engels's “&” (as in “many & prominent” above); it may also be a low opening quotation mark. [^a4]: “therefore” written above the line, with a caret before “Mr”. [^d3]: 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). [^n3]: “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. [^n4]: This whole paragraph, the last on page 1, is cancelled with three long diagonal strokes. [^a5]: “proposal” written above the deleted “question”. [^a6]: “Espe-” is blotted out and “cially” struck through; “to those” written above, with a cross under the comma after “people”. [^a7]: “vehicle of the most various and” written above the deletion; “and” a little higher. [^n5]: “emancipation” is retraced in heavier ink, but not struck through. [^a8]: “up to” written above the deleted “by”. [^a9]: “opinions” written above the deleted “views”. [^a10]: “it” written above the deleted “that current”.