September 2023 Auction Ends Thursday, September 28th, 5pm Pacific
Very scarce Friedrich Engels autograph letter signed, written to the journalist Carl Hirsch, former editor of the social-democratic publication "The Lantern". Composed on 19 March 1895, less than five months before his death, this letter represents Engels most sophisticated thinking regarding economic theory, with nuance on how working conditions shift depending upon the size and type of industry as well as how competitive or mature it is in the business life cycle. In the letter, Engels critiques a series of articles written by Hirsch that were published in "Sozialpolitisches Centralblatt" in 1894-95; Hirsch intended to publish them in a second edition after incorporating Engels' notes. This letter was published in "Marx/Engels Collected Works", though that transcription corrected Engels' 19th century spelling and contained a few errors from mis-reading his handwriting. Written on his personal stationery with his home address of 41 Regent's Park Road in London, letter translates from the original German in full:
Dear Hirsch, / I will grant you this favor, but only on two conditions:
1/ this matter must remain strictly between us, for otherwise I will receive 100 more such requests for preliminary review, and whatever I do for one person I cannot refuse to do for the next one.
2/ that this is the last time you ask me for this sort of thing. I already receive more articles in one week than I am capable of reading in one month. If I am meant to critique them as well, I will have even less chance of getting them done.
P. 4. 'One-sided.' This is far less the case for large-scale industry than it is for manufacturing. On the contrary, major industry largely eliminates the incapacitation of manufacturing, even though it also engenders its own in return; the latter may increase with the intensification of work. As far as I am familiar with major industry, this point seems to receive more emphasis here than the actual situation warrants. The division of labor is and continues to be the root cause of the crippling of labor.
P. 6. - 'Every time overproductions, crises.' - May, tends to - realization by no means necessary.
'Circular movement' seems to me too general a statement. Which production method is implied here? 'the minimum of socially necessary work time,' - if this is meant to be the time required for production of the total societal output, it makes no sense in capitalist society, since in its distribution to the individual workers the entire industrial reserve force is left out of account.
P. 15. Everywhere here (and all the way to the end of the sentence) - at a minimum, this is put very obscurely and, as it stands, a contraction. First, an increase in work products engenders 'a gain in itself', and then a 'loss of value,' which at least may be possible. This will not work unless the explanatory and qualifying middle links are provided.
P. 18. The worker is his own capital. This has a nice ring to it, but the word capital loses the last vestige of its meaning here. What on earth made you translate reasonable things into irrational Philistine phrases? What you say here is incomprehensible to me.
Also below, p. 18, no. 2. The concentration of work resulting from the improvement of machinery is suddenly called unhealthy here. It may be so, and it frequently is in the capitalist system, but in itself it is hardly more unhealthy than eating and digesting on the following page. Not only will it not cease, but we will be able to increase it significantly because with it we will have the workers' compensations. Additional glosses in the margins!
If you plan to publish a second edition at some later time, I would advise that you substantiate these rather general arguments with specific examples, citing facts from different branches of industry, and generally stating, which industries you are referring to. For instance, regarding the developed English textile industry, your sentences apply to only a very limited extent. By contrast, they may be a great deal more valid in Germany, where major industry is still in its infancy and is just starting to prevail in a whole range of production lines due to replacement of old methods and a suddenly increased intensity of labor. These are just transitional phases, however. When dealing with these kinds of economic and specifically industrial matters, it is essential to not succumb to the local point of view. Taken for what they are, these transitional phases have a full importance of their own, but one must also recognize and say that that is what they are and nothing else. And now, in your immediate vicinity, you have the most beautiful opportunity to show that all your pronouncements are deductions of living reality, and at the same time you will even learn something yourself.
I hope that you do well in the new election in Cologne so that we will at least be part of the final ballot. And if you happen to write to me again some time, please let me know whether the old house behind Hutmacher, where the Neue Rheinische Zeitung used to be, still is No. 17, and whether the sweatshop owner who now lives there is called Salomon or Levi - I forgot.
You are doing quite nicely so far in your battle with the Centrum party, but I think you should castigate the conduct of Lieber & Co in the Reichstag a bit more often in your editorials. / Many regards / Your / F.E.''.
Four-page letter on bifolium stationery measures 8.875" x 7" unfolded. Horizontal fold, with small hole at center. Engels' name written in ink on the bottom of the fourth page in another hand. Minor toning and soiling, overall in very good condition. Engels letters are scarce, with very few in private hands.
Scarce Friedrich Engels Autograph Letter Signed Mentioning a Capitalist Society & System, Division of Labor, Industry, Labor, Machinery, Manufacturing, Production Lines and the Worker
Click above for larger image.