1879
Dear Friend,
... You would oblige me by copying for me verbatim the passage in Busch [OR Buret?](1) in which I am taxed with the bad taste of having preserved the life of the Champagne phiz...[460]
247. Engels to Johann Philipp Becker. 30 January
Dear Old Man,
It hardly needed a postcard from you for me to bestir myself on your behalf.[461] From a friend in Manchesterb I have received one pound to be used for victims of the Anti-Socialist Law.[462] I could not put it to better use than by passing it on to you, and I have also added a second, for which you should get a remittance of 50 frs 40 from Basle and get it, probably, the day after you receive this letter. I have retained the receipt. Anything more that can be done later on, will be done.
As to agencies, there's nothing doing.[3] Business here is absolutely rotten, and no one wants to take any chances.
So far as the Précurseur is concerned, I would, if I were you, tell the people in Geneva once and for all that I was not in a position to pay out anything whatever in respect of the paper. It is a crying shame. Not only do you take upon yourself all the worry and the work, getting nothing in return, but on top of that you are expected to cough up the expenses. But the Genevans have always been like that. Ever since Calvin and his predestination,[463] they have regarded themselves as the chosen people and expected everything to fall into their laps. It was thus in the case of the Egalité, when Utin had to supply both the work and the cash. It was thus in the case of the great building workers' strike, when the International had to provide the cash,[464] but knocked in vain at the Genevans' doors when there were strikes elsewhere.
We were much tickled by the news that, like Achilles, the great Guillaume has withdrawn sulking into his tent.[465] This was bound to happen. The anarchists weren't worthy of the name until anarchy broke out in their own midst. Still, Guillaume was at least the great Bakunin's successor — but that an upstart like Brousse should propose to turn the world upside down — why, it's positively ludicrous.
Over here Most is publishing a little sheet, the Freiheit, for the communist Workers' Society[55]; so far it has sold well.[466] We wish it all prosperity but otherwise, of course, have nothing to do with it, nor are we in any way responsible for its contents.
In Germany, by the way, things are going rapidly downhill. A walloping for the Reichstag[467]—such is the latest and best [piece of news]. Only let it carry on like this, with more and more taxes on top, and the good Bismarck will yet be surprised by his petty bourgeois, who are going to the devil fast enough as it is. Apart from the unavoidable suffering it will bring down upon individuals, nothing could be of greater advantage to us on the whole than what is now happening. Any harm Bismarck could do us, he has already done; what he is now doing affects our opponents, the petty bourgeois men of Progress,[312] and, with time, will also affect the liberal big bourgeoisie.
248. Engels to Wilhelm Liebknecht, i March
So let him keep it up! And aside from this, affairs in Russia are going ahead splendidly, and that's the main thing. If there's an explosion there, then William,a too, might as well pack his bags.
Your
F. E.
248
ENGELS TO WILHELM LIEBKNECHT
IN LEIPZIG
London, 1 March 1879
Dear Liebknecht,
We have again tried to come to an arrangement with The Whitehall Review through Barry, if only in regard to the Reichstag reports, but the jackass insisted on the articles being signed; so we had to give him a flat refusal and let him go. The negotiations lasted a pretty long time and, until matters had reached the stage of oui ou non, there was, of course, nothing we could tell you.
The election in Breslau[468] has made a splendid impression here too. Still more, however, the speed with which Bismarck is ruining himself. He really is coming 'one cropper after another'[469]—going de chute en chute. He has now lost virtually all of his apologists in the English press — even The Times, which was very deeply involved with him, is trying to extricate itself.[470] Now that he's become a protectionist, the English, of course, are all the more reluctant to have anything further to do with him. Even in Germany, come to that, a reversion to the protectionist system would be downright reactionary. Still, it's excellent that Monsieur Bismarck should again be drifting towards dissolution.[467] Only let him drive the German philistines really wild and even they will lose patience in the end, particularly if their pockets are affected.
249. Marx to Nikolai Danielson. 10 April
And as for the MUDDLE Bismarck is making in the field of foreign policy, that is altogether beyond compare.
Most's little papera seems to be making good progress — he turns up from time to time, but not often, and we cannot, of course, accept any responsibility at all for its contents. But we wish it success, of course, as we do anything that is moving in the right direction, however imperfect its methods may be.
Your F.
249
MARX TO NIKOLAI DANIELSON[471]
IN ST PETERSBURG[450]
London, 10 April 1879
My dear Sir,
When I received your letter of February (and at the same time the valuable prints, which have come to my hands like the others you mention [72]) my wife had fallen so ill that the doctors doubted whether she was likely to survive the attack, and meanwhile my own state of health underwent some serious shocks. (In point of fact, since, consequent upon the state of things in Germany and Austria, I was precluded from paying my annual visit to Karlsbad, I have never enjoyed a comparative state of ease.) Under these circumstances which have only improved a very short time since, I could not study the papers sent me. In the meantime I had sent you a letter[12] by a German on the way to St Petersburg, limiting myself to an acknowledgement of your letter and recommending the bearer, but, to my great astonishment, he reappeared yesterday here and told me that, consequent upon some incidents, he had not got farther than Berlin and renounced altogether visiting Petersburg.
And now, primo, I am obliged to tell you (cela est tout à fait confidentiel*) that I have been informed from Germany, my second volumeb could not be published so long as the present régime was maintained in its present severity. This news, considering the status quo, did not surprise me, and, I must confess, was far from annoying me — for these reasons[473]:
Firstly: I should under no circumstances have published the second volume before the present English industrial crisis had reached its climax. The phenomena are this time singular, in many respects different from what they were in the past, and this — quite apart from other modifying circumstances — is easily accounted for by the fact that never before the English crisis was preceded by tremendous and now already 5 years lasting crisis in the Unites States, South America, Germany, Austria, etc.
It is therefore necessary to watch the present course of things until their maturity before you can 'consume' them 'productively', I mean 'theoretically'.
One of the singular aspects of the present state is this: There have, as you know, been crashes of banks in Scotland and in some of the English counties, principally the Western (of Cornwall and Wales) ones. Still the real centre of the money-market—not only of the United Kingdom, but of the world — London has till now been little affected. On the contrary, save a few exceptions, the immense joint-stock bank companies, like the Bank of England, have as yet only profited of the general prostration. And what this prostration is, you may judge from the utter despair of the English commercial and industrial philistine of seeing ever better times again! I have not seen the like, I have never witnessed a similar moral dislocation although I was in London in 1857 and 1866[474]!
There is no doubt, one of the circumstances favourable to the London money-market is the state of the Bank of France, which, since the recent development of the intercourse between the two countries, has become a succursale[11] to the Bank of England. The Bank of France keeps an immense amount of bullion, the convertibility of its banknotes being not yet re-established, and at the signal of any perturbation of the London stock-exchange French money flows in to buy securities momentarily depreciated. If, during last autumn, the French money had been suddenly withdrawn, the Bank of England would certainly have had refuge to its last remedy in extremis, the suspension of the Bank Act,[473] and in that case we would have had the monetary crash.
On the other hand, the quiet way in which the restauration of cash payments was effected in the United States, has removed all strain from that corner upon the resources of the Bank of England. But what till now mainly contributed to prevent an explosion within the London money-market, is the apparently quiet state of the banks of Lancashire and the other industrial districts (saving the mining districts of the West), though it is sure and ascertained, that these banks have not only invested great part of their resources in discounting of bills of, and advances upon, unprofitable transactions of the manufacturers, but have, as f.i. at Oldham, sunk a great part of their capital in the foundation of new fabrics. At the same time stocks, mainly of cotton produce, are daily accumulating not only in Asia (India principally) whither they are sent on consignment, but at Manchester, etc., etc. How this state of things could pass away without a general crash among the manufacturers, and, consequently, among the local banks, reacting directly upon the London money-market — is difficult to foresee.
Meanwhile strikes and disturbance are general. I remark en passant that during the past year — so bad for all other business — the railways have been flourishing, but this was only due to extraordinary circumstances, like the Paris exhibition,[4]'[6] etc. In truth, the railways keep up an appearance of prosperity, by accumulating debts, increasing from day to day their capital account.
However the course of this crisis may develop itself — although most important to observe in its details for the student of capitalistic production and the professional théoricien—it will pass over, like its predecessors, and initiate a new 'industrial cycle' with all its diversified phases of prosperity, etc.
But under the cover of this 'apparently' solid English society, there lurks another crisis— the agricultural one which will work great and serious changes in its social structure. I shall recur to this subject on another occasion/ It would lead me too far at present.
Secondly: The bulk of materials I have received not only from Russia, but from the United States, etc., make it pleasant for me to have a 'pretext' of continuing my studies, instead of winding them up finally for the public.
Thirdly: My medical adviser(1) has warned me to shorten considerably my 'working-day' if I were not desirous to relapse into the state of 1874 and the following years where I got giddy and unable to proceed after a few hours of serious application.
In regard to your most remarkable letter I shall confine myself to a few observations.
The railways sprang first up as the 'couronnement de l'oeuvre'b in those countries where modern industry was most developed, England, United States, Belgium, France, etc. I call them the 'couronnement de l'oeuvre' not only in the sense, that they were at last (together with steamships for oceanic intercourse and the telegraphs) the means of communication adequate to the modern means of production, but also in so far as they were the basis of immense joint-stock companies, forming at the same time a new starting point for all other sorts of joint-stock companies, to commence by banking companies. They gave in one word an impetus never before suspected to the concentration of capital and also to the accelerated and immensely enlarged cosmopolitan activity of loanable capital, thus embracing the whole world in a network of financial swindling and mutual indebtedness, the capitalistic form of 'international' brotherhood.
On the other hand, the appearance of the railway system in the leading states of capitalism allowed, and even forced, states where capitalism was confined to a few summits of society, to suddenly create and enlarge their capitalistic superstructure in dimensions altogether disproportionate to the bulk of the social body carrying on the great work of production in the traditional modes. There is, therefore, not the least doubt that in those states the railway creation has accelerated the social and political disintegration, as in the more advanced states it hastened the final development, and therefore the final change, of capitalistic production. In all states, except England, the governments enriched and fostered the railway companies at the expense of the public Exchequer. In the United States they received as a present a great part of the public land, not only the land necessary for the construction of the lines, but many miles of land along both sides [of] the lines, covered with forests, etc. They became so the greatest landlords, the small immigrating farmers preferring of course lands so situated as to ensure their produce ready means of transport.
The system inaugurated in France by Louis Philippe, of handing over the railways to a small band of financial aristocrats, endowing them with long terms of possession, guaranteeing the interest out of the public pocket, etc., etc., was pushed to the utmost limit by Louis Bonaparte whose régime, in fact, was essentially based upon the traffic in railway concessions, to some of which he was so kind as to make presents of canals, etc.
But in Austria, and Italy above all, the railways were a new source of unbearable state indebtedness and grinding of the masses.
Generally, the railways gave of course an immense impulse to the development of Foreign Commerce, but this commerce in countries which export principally raw produce increased the misery of the masses. Not only that the new indebtedness, contracted by the governments on account of the railways, increased the bulk of imposts weighing upon them, but from the moment every local production could be converted into cosmopolitan gold, many articles formerly cheap, because invendible to a great degree, such as fruit, wine, fish, deer, etc., became dear and were withdrawn from the consumption of the people, while, on the other hand, the production itself I mean the special sort of produce, was changed according to its greater or minor suitableness for exportation, while formerly it was principally adapted to its consumption in loco. Thus f.i. in Schleswig-Holstein agricultural land was converted into pasture, because the export of cattle was more profitable, but, at the same time, the agricultural population was driven away. All these changes [were] very useful indeed for the great landed proprietor, the usurer, the merchant, the railways, the bankers and so forth, but very dismal for the real producer!
It is, to conclude by this my letter (since the time for putting it to post draws nearer and nearer), impossible to find real analogies between the United States and Russia. In the former the expenses of the government diminish daily and its public debt is quickly and yearly reduced; in the latter public bankruptcy is a goal more and more appearing to become unavoidable. The former has freed itself (although in a most infamous way, for the advantage of the creditors and at the expense of the menu peuple*) of its paper-money, the latter has no more flourishing fabric than that of paper-money. In the former the concentration of capital and the gradual expropriation of the masses is not only the vehicle, but also the natural offspring (though artificially accelerated by the Civil War[453]) of an unprecedented rapid industrial development, agricultural progress, etc.; the latter reminds you rather of the times of Louis XIV and Louis XV, where the financial, commercial, industrial superstructure, or rather the façade of the social edifice, looked (although they had a much more solid foundation than in Russia) like a satire upon the stagnant state of the bulk of production (the agricultural one) and the famine of the producers. The United States have at present much overtaken England in the rapidity of economical progress, though they lag still behind in the extent of acquired wealth, but at the same time the masses are quicker, and have greater political means in their hands, to resent the form of a progress accomplished at their expense. I need not prolong the antitheses.
Apropos. Which do you consider the best Russian work on credit and banking?
Mr Kaufman was so kind as to send me his book on 'theory and practice of banking',[3] but I was rather astonished that my former intelligent critic in the Petersburger Messager de l'Europe[47]' had converted himself into a sort of Pindar of modern Stock-Exchange swindling. Besides, considered merely — and I expect generally nothing else of books of this kind — from Fachstandpunkt,b it is far from original in its details. The best part in it is the polemics against paper-money.
It is said that certain foreign bankers with whom a certain government desired to contract new loans, have asked as a guarantee — a constitution. I am far from believing this, because their modern method of doing the business was, till now at least, and could be, very indifferent as to forms of government.
Yours truly,
A. Williamsc
251. Engels to J. Gugenheim. 16 June
250. Marx to Rudolph Meyer. 28 May
Dear Sir,
I enclose the letter from Mr Reichenbach intended for yourself[478]; at the same time I am sending you issue 10a per
BOOK-POST.
I shall be pleased to make your personal acquaintance, having made sundry vain attempts to acquaint myself with your Politische Gründer}' If you are not already otherwise engaged, you will find me at home tomorrow at any time between 10 o'clock in the morning and 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant
Karl Marx
To R. Meyer, ESQ.
251
ENGELS TO J. GUGENHEIM
IN LONDON
[Draft]
[London,] 16 June 1879
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your esteemed letter of 29 May and regret that under present circumstances I cannot comply with
252. Engels to Eduard Bernstein. 17 June
the wish expressed in the same that I deliver a lecture to your Society.[479]
The organ of that Society, the Freiheit, has thought fit publicly to attack the attitude of Social-Democratic deputies in the Reichstag.[480] Now even though statements have been made in the Reichstag by certain of our members which I, too, regard as inept (and about which I have not hesitated to express my views privately and in an appropriate place),[481] I can in no way declare myself in agreement with the kind of criticism chosen by the
Freiheit and still less with its having felt obliged to pursue this kind of criticism in public.
You will understand that if I were willing to deliver a lecture to the Society under these circumstances, this would inevitably give rise to the view in Germany and elsewhere that I condoned the attitude adopted by the Freiheit.
252
ENGELS TO EDUARD BERNSTEIN[482]
IN ZURICH
[Draft]
[London,] 17 June [1879]
In reply to your esteemed note of the 13th, which did not reach me until yesterday, I regret to inform you that I am not in a position to give you the name of a person capable of producing the articles you desire in a really competent manner.[4]
For a number of years the English workers' movement has been going round and round bootlessly in a confined circle of STRIKES for wages and the reduction of working hours — not, mark you, as an expedient and a means of propaganda and organisation, but as the ultimate aim. Both on principle and statutorily the TRADES UNIONS actually exclude any political action and hence participation in any general activity on the part of the working class as a class. Politically the workers are divided into Conservatives and Liberal-
253. Engels to Eduard Bernstein. 26 June
Radicals, into supporters of a Disraeli (Beaconsfield) administration and supporters of a Gladstone administration. So one can speak of a workers' movement here only to the extent that STRIKES take place which, victorious or otherwise, do not advance the movement by one single step. In my view only harm can come of inflating STRIKES such as these into struggles of world-historical importance (as does e.g. the Freiheit here), STRIKES which were, moreover, as often as not deliberately engineered by the capitalists in the late years of depression so as to have an excuse for closing down their factories, STRIKES in which the working class makes no progress whatsoever. No attempt should be made to conceal the fact that at this moment a genuine workers' movement in the continental sense is non-existent here, and hence I don't believe you will miss much if, for the time being, you don't get any reports on the doings of the TRADES UNIONS here.
253
ENGELS TO EDUARD BERNSTEIN
IN ZURICH
[Draft]
London, 26 June 1879
122 Regent's Park Road, N. W.
Dear Comrade,
I am sorry you didn't tell me from the start that in making your inquiry you had my reporting in mind(1); had you done so, you would have received a definite answer straight away.
When, after being much pressed to do so, I decided to tackle the tedious Mr Diihring, I told Liebknecht that this was positively the last time I would allow journalistic activities to interfere with my more substantial work[484] unless political events made this absolutely imperative — something I alone must decide.b During the nine years I have spent here in London, I have learnt that it's no good trying to complete more substantial works while simultaneously engaging in practical agitation. I grow no younger with the passage of time and must at long last restrict myself to definite tasks if I am to get anything done at all. I wrote and told Mr Wiede as much when he founded the Neue Gesellschaft?
As for Mr Höchberg, you are mistaken if you think that I feel any 'antipathy' towards him. When Mr Höchberg founded the Zukunft, we got invitations to contribute signed 'the Editorial Board'.[313] Unless I am much mistaken, Mr Höchberg was not even known to us by name at that time, and it goes without saying that we paid no attention to anonymous communications of this kind. Soon after, Mr Höchberg made known his programme of the Zukunft,b according to which socialism was to arise out of the concept of 'justice'. Such a programme directly excluded from the outset all those who ultimately regarded socialism, not as the logical outcome of any idea or principle such as justice, etc., but as the ideal product of a material-economic process, of the social process of production at a given stage. Thus Mr Höchberg had himself precluded all possibility of our collaborating with him. But aside from the above programme, nothing has come to my notice on the strength of which I could form any authentic idea of Mr Höchberg's philosophical views. Not that all this is in any way a reason for feeling any 'antipathy' towards him, or prejudice against a literary venture for which he is responsible. On the contrary, I adopt the same attitude towards it as I do towards any other prospective socialist publication until I know what's going to be in it — one of sympathy and expectation.
But that is all by the way — the fact of the matter is that I must restrain myself from contributing to journals if I mean to finish work that really ought to be of greater importance to the movement as a whole than an article or two in periodicals. And, as you can see, I have for several years observed this rule impartially vis-à-vis all-comers.
I am also interested to see from your letter that people over here have led you to believe that I, and presumably Marx as well, am 'in complete agreement' with the policy of the Freiheit. Precisely the reverse is true. We have not seen Mr Most since he began his attacks on the Social-Democratic deputies.[480] Nor was he able to learn what we thought of this until the middle of the month when I replied to an invitation from the secretary[3] of the Workers' Society[50] to go and lecture there."[3] I refused outright because it could only lead people in Germany, etc., to conclude that I agreed with the kind of polemic the Freiheit is conducting, and publicly at that, against the Social-Democratic deputies; little though I may approve of certain statements in the Reichstag, this is by no means the case.
As we have heard much the same thing from another quarter, we would be glad to be in a position that would enable us to scotch these misrepresentations once and for all. The simplest way of doing this would be for you, if you would be so kind, to let us have a copy of the relevant passages from letters so that we may know precisely what has been said about us and conduct ourselves accordingly. Your allusions could, of course, be only of a general nature, but for that very reason it is all the more desirable that we should have some definite information so that we can act upon it direct. After almost forty years, revolutionary tittle-tattle is something that has ceased to surprise us.
Should Mr Most fall into the hands of the anarchists, or even of Russians of Tkachov's stamp, it would at most spell his own undoing. These chaps will fall victim to the anarchy they have themselves created. Which is not to say that it mightn't be quite a good thing to knock them on the head every now and again.
Unless one or two of the works you mention are still to be had at the booksellers, I would not be able to get hold of copies for you; I myself no longer possess a copy of some of them and have tried in vain to get them second-hand.
As regards the French movement, besides our .contacts with party members over here, we also maintain direct relations with Paris nor, for that matter, were the links we established at the time of the International ever broken at all. Thus, for instance, only quite recently we received a new socialist paper appearing in Oporto, O operario.
254. Engels to Johann Philipp Becker. 1 July
254
ENGELS TO JOHANN PHILIPP BECKER[486]
IN GENEVA
London, 1 July 1879
Dear Old Man,
The new half year has brought me in some money and I therefore hasten to notify you that I have sent off a money order to you for £4 sterling=100 francs 80 centimes; you will doubtless get it straight after receipt of this letter. I hope it will be enough to relieve your chronic ill-luck, if only for a short spell. I wish we could do more than just offer you an occasional helping hand, but as you know, recent events have led to heavier demands from all sides.
Liebknecht's unseasonable mildness in the Reichstag[486] has, understandably enough, created a most disagreeable impression in the Latin countries of Europe, as it has among Germans everywhere. Indeed, we immediately wrote and told him as much.[481] Agitation of the old, easy-going, lackadaisical sort, interspersed with an occasional 6 weeks-6 months in quod, is a thing of the past where Germany is concerned. No matter how the present state of affairs comes to an end, the new movement is starting off on a more or less revolutionary basis and hence its character must be far more resolute than in the first period of the movement, now concluded. Either the maxim about the peaceable attainment of the goal will no longer be necessary, or else no one will continue to take it seriously. By making that maxim impossible and giving a revolutionary cast to the movement, Bismarck has done us a tremendous service which more than outweighs the bit of harm caused by interference with agitation.
On the other hand, the aforementioned tame speech in the Reichstag has meant that big-mouthed revolutionary charlatans have again begun to raise their heads, and are trying to disorganise the party by cliquism and intrigue. At the hub of these machinations is our local Workers' Society[53] which still harbours braggarts of '49 vintage, à la Weber, Neustadt an der Hardt and family. After the revival of the movement in Germany, the people over here had lost such significance as they may still have possessed in the years 1840-62; now they see an opportunity of pushing their way to the top. Even in recent years young Weber,
255. Marx to Carlo Cafiero. 29 July
one Kaufmann and others have constituted themselves the central committee of the European-American working men's movement on at least six occasions, but have always been obstinately ignored by the irreverent world. Now they intend to force it through and have discovered an ally in Most. The Freiheit is shouting for revolution by fire and sword which, for the worthy Most, is, of course, a quite unprecedented pleasure in which he could never before have allowed himself to indulge. Moreover, it has grossly exaggerated the goings-on in the Reichstag and made them a pretext for disrupting the party and forming a new one. This is to exploit the present exigency and enforced silence in Germany for the benefit of a few nitwits whose ambition is notably dispropor-tionate to their capabilities — and if, as we have heard, Most has let it be known that he has our support, then he is lying. Since he embarked on this role he's kept well out of sight. Au fond* it's as well that he should unmask himself like this, thus ruining any prospects he might subsequently have in Germany; he is not without talent, but horribly vain, undisciplined and ambitious, and so itVbetter that he should go and put his foot in it. Come to that, the Freiheit won't, presumably, survive much longer, and then all this will quietly relapse into oblivion.
With most cordial regards from Marx and
Your
F. E.
255
MARX TO CARLO CAFIERO[487]
IN NAPLES [Draft]
London, 29 July 1879 41 Maitland Park Road, N. W. Dear Citizen,
My sincerest thanks for the two copies of your work[488]! Some time ago I received two similar works, one written in Serbian, the
;1 Really other in English (published in the United States),[341] but both of them err in that, by seeking to provide a succinct and popular résumé of Capital, they also devote themselves in too pedantic a manner to the scientific form of the argument. Thus it seems to me that they more or less lose sight of their principal object, which is to make an impression on the public for whom these résumés are intended. And it is here that your work is vastly superior!
As to the concept of the thing, I believe I am not mistaken when I find an apparent gap in the views set out in your preface, which is that there is no proof that the material conditions indispensable to the emancipation of the proletariat are engendered in spontaneous fashion by the progress of capitalist production.[3]
Moreover, I share your opinion — if I have interpreted your preface aright — that one ought not to overload the minds of the people one is proposing to educate. There is nothing to prevent your making, at the right moment, a further attempt aimed at placing greater emphasis on this materialist basis of Capital.
Once again many thanks.
Yours very sincerely,
Karl Marx
256. Engels to August Bebel. 4 August[489]
IN LEIPZIG [Copy]
London, 4 August 1879 Dear Bebel,
Since I last wrote on 25 July[1]'[1]' Hirsch has informed us of his correspondence with Bernstein and Liebknecht about the new paper.[490] To judge by this, matters would appear to be materially different from what your letter had entitled us to assume.
Since Hirsch's altogether justifiable inquiries as to what arrangements had been made and who would be running the paper, on the one hand financially, on the other administratively, met with no other reply from Liebknecht save: 'the party plus Höchberg',[491]
and the reiterated assurance that everything was in order — we could only assume, even then, that the paper would be financed by Höchberg and that the 'we' to whom, according to E. Bernstein's letter, 'the production and supervision' would be entrusted,[492] would, once again, be Höchberg and his secretary Bernsteine
From Bernstein's second letter to Hirsch just received, it transpires that such is indeed the case.[493]
You will not, I presume, fail to perceive that the errors against which I warned in my last [letter] will now almost inevitably form an intrinsic part of the paper. Höchberg has shown himself to be exceedingly muddle-headed in matters of theory and, in practice, impelled by an irresistible urge to fraternise with all and sundry who profess to be, not merely socialist, but also and even simply social. He showed his true colours in the Zukunft, discrediting the party both as regards theory and in practice.
What the party needs above all is a political organ. And really Höchberg is at best a wholly unpolitical man, not even a social democrat, but a social philanthropist. Nor, according to Bernstein's letter, is the paper to be in the least political, but socialist on principle, which, in such hands, necessarily means social-fantastic, a new edition of the Zukunft. A paper of this kind would represent the party only if the latter were willing to degrade itself and become a mere appendage to Höchberg and his armchair socialist friends. If the party leaders were really to try and bring the proletariat under the leadership of Höchberg and his ambiguous friends, the workers would be unlikely to go along with them;
[11] The following is deleted in the manuscript of the draft: 'That C. Hirsch cannot assume the editorship in these circumstances without quite specific guarantees of his independence vis-à-vis his superior on the financial side, goes without saying. I doubt very much whether sufficient guarantees of this kind could be given, and regard it as fairly certain that the negotiations with C. Hirsch will come to nothing. But even were they to succeed, it is virtually certain that Hirsch's position would ultimately become untenable through his being controlled by two superiors of whom one, who provides the finances, is not a social democrat but a social philantropist. and the other, as Liebknecht admits, "would himself like to be editor".'
257. Marx to Rudolph Meyer. 7 August
dissension and disorganisation would inevitably result; but Most and the ranters over here would experience their greatest triumph.
In these circumstances, which were quite unknown to us when I wrote my last letter, we believe that Hirsch is absolutely right in refusing to have anything to do with the matter. The same applies to Marx and myself. Our consent regarding contributions was given in respect of a genuine party organ and hence was applicable only to such — not, however, to a private organ of Mr Höchberg's masquerading as a party organ. To that we would in no circumstances contribute.[3] Marx and I therefore specifically ask that you should kindly ensure we are not named as contributors.
257
MARX TO RUDOLPH MEYER
IN LONDON
[London,] 7 August 1879
Dear Mr Meyer,
I am today sending you your Gründer" PER BOOK-POST. My departure[494] was held up as a result of Longuet's having fallen ill: he is feared to have gastric fever, and we shall probably hear today what the verdict is. If the thing's serious I shall have to abandon the trip to Jersey (which I wanted to visit because the place is new to my companion — my youngest daughter0) and go to a seaside resort near London. I shall be going to one of these in
258. Marx to Engels. 14 August ,
any case, even after my return from Jersey, along with Madame Lafargue and my grandson,[3] and look forward to your visiting me there.
Should anything unforeseen happen to precipitate your departure, perhaps you would be so kind as to return the volumes of periodicals (the Leipzig and Paris ones), at the same time letting me know (all letters will be forwarded to me from my house) whether the January issue (1879) of the Osterreichische Monatsschrift für Gesellschaftswissenschaften was followed by a second.
With best wishes for your future, and cordial regards from my wife and my daughter, Eleanor,
Yours very sincerely,
Karl Marx
258
MARX TO ENGELS[495]
IN LONDON
St Aubin's, 14 August 1879 Trafalgar Hotel
Dear FRED,
I am sending this note to your London address since — to go by your letter to my wife [15]—there is no knowing that you will still belong to the population of Eastbourne after today. [96]
Herewith letter from Hirsch to m e * ditto letter from Louise Juta to Pumps.
Our crossing from Southampton to Jersey[494] was made altogether too watery by a tremendous downpour of rain; we arrived dripping wet at St Hélier where it was also 'pouring' hard. Since then the weather, after occasional vacillations and transitions and set-backs, has been very good. The farmers in Jersey thought 14 1879
the end of the world was at hand; they maintain that they've never had such a bad spring and summer. Tomorrow we are moving to the Hôtel de l'Europe, St Hélier. We are leaving our present lodgings in St Aubin's because Tussy and I cannot stand the monotonous daily fare of lamb or MUTTON in consequence of which I have, during the past few days, become an involuntary VEGETARIAN. We could find nowhere else to stay — we spent a great deal of time hunting round — i n these parts. When we arrived in Jersey, it was still comparatively empty, but as time went on there was immigration on a massive scale, notably of FRENCHIES. When we made inquiries at the Hôtel de l'Europe this morning, it so happened, fortunately for us, that 60 French people were just getting ready to leave, whereas on the other hand the STEAMERS laden with fresh human scum had not yet come in.
O n leaving London from Waterloo Station, we met Harney, who was seeing his wife off to Jersey. Luckily she already had a first class TICKET, whereas we were travelling second. On the BOAT we met again. Like us, she is not prone to SEASICKNESS, but was in other respects unwell. O n landing we again went our different ways, but she gave us the address of her brother with whom she is staying. Since then, we have paid a short visit of 'condolence'. T h e woman is utterly IMPRACTICABLE. Although a native of Jersey, she can provide no information other than what may be found in the GUIDE. A good woman, but not JUST THE PERSON for such as are travelling for recreation. I have been at long last sleeping properly here, only I have not quite shaken off a cold caught as a result of the abominable weather. But in this mild climate it will no doubt soon disappear of its own accord. Tussy ALL RIGHT.
Two Derbyshire farmers, father and son, were until recently our companions at table in the Trafalgar Hôtel. T h e day before yesterday they went on a sailing trip to St Malo and, having 'been to France' for the first time in their lives, returned with an immoderately inflated opinion of themselves. T h e father even felt half-inclined to go with his son on a TRIP to the MEDITERRANEAN, but thought it would be 'too hot' there. 'BY NO MEANS,' said his son, who is the BOOK-LEARNED man of the two, 'BY NO MEANS, THERE IT IS NOW — WINTER!' I was likewise informed by the old man (who is, by the by, in his prime and A SHARP FELLOW, WITH THE TRUE BUSINESS EYE) that St Malo was situated on the south-west coast of France. O n the other hand, both are well-versed in the sphere of agriculture and other FARMERS' QUESTIONS.
Tussy finds that bathing presents no difficulties worth mentioning, and has so far been bathing alternately in St Brelade's Bay
259. Marx to Jenny Longuet. 19 August
and St Hélier's Bay, and now alternately in the latter and St Clement's Bay.
From my wife's letter, I see that Schorlemeyer was ill when he arrived; I hope to have better news of him soon.
Since my arrival here I haven't looked at any newspapers, have read nothing at all save Carleton's Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry, FIRST VOLUME. It was hard enough work, getting through the first volume; the second I shall save up for better times. They are UNCONNECTED TALES in which Irish peasant life is portrayed now from this angle now from that — hence not suitable for consumption all at one go. For that very reason it's a book one ought to buy and own in order to regale oneself à fur et mesure* now with one dish, now with another. Carleton is neither a good stylist nor a good compiler, but his originality consists in the fidelity of his descriptions. As the son of an Irish peasant, he knows his subject better than any Levers or Lovers.
With kindest regards from Tussy and self to all of you
Your
Moor
259
MARX TO JENNY LONGUET[498]
IN RAMSGATE
St Hélier, 19 August 1879 Hôtel de l'Europe
My dear beloved Jennychen,
Long live the little citizen of the world! [4]" II faut peupler le monde de garçons d'autant plus que la statistique anglaise montre un excès de filles. I'm glad that the catastrophe has proceeded auspiciously so far, though unfortunately under somewhat difficult circumstances. The ARRANGEMENT made by Mamma strikes me as being * far from
260. Engels to Marx. 20 August
the most convenient. At all events, Tussy and myself leave to-morrow for London and then I shall be very soon at your side[500]
and everything will be quietly settled. Here the rainy time— otherwise so unknown to this delicious island — has again set in, so that we had already commenced discussing our departure, the whole aspect of our sojourn here having changed with the climatic and météorologie changes.
The Hôtel de l'Europe is excellent and one day we must go here together, toute la famille.
I can hardly expect to-morrow morning when the boat will start from here to Southampton. I feel so anxious with you and little Johnny.
In the meantime my best compliments to Mamma and Longuet.* Just don't fret or worry, my child, everything will turn out all right.
Your trusty
OLD NICK*
You must excuse the brevity of this note, the reason being that the letter has to be posted at once.
260
ENGELS TO MARX
IN ST HÉLIER«M
Eastbourne,[496] 20 August 1879 53 Grand Parade
Dear Moor,
I return herewith the letters from Hirsch,[497] ditto one from Liebknecht which I have just answered.[501] I've drawn his attention to his strange contradictions, viz.:'you wrote to Hirsch saying that the paper was backed by "the party+Höchberg", which must surely mean, if Höchberg is in any way a plus, his purse, for in other respects he's a negative quantity. You now write and tell me that Höchberg hasn't contributed a penny. Maybe somebody can make sense of that, I GIVE IT UP.' Also that it was absurd to say that Hirsch had 'misinterpreted' Bernstein's letter[492] 'in an even sillier way', since that letter admitted of no misinterpretation at all, Bernstein having plainly made himself out therein to be the effective head of the editorial board. Naturally, I went on, Liebknecht believed that he had arranged everything for the best, but Hirsch was entitled to see for himself and Liebknecht was preventing him from doing so by withholding the relevant material; so if Hirsch were to refuse, it would be Liebknecht's fault. 'As for ourselves, this much is certain: If Hirsch does not accept, we shall have to consider very carefully what we should do; we certainly shan't take the bait without knowing who in fact "The Party" is that is backing the paper.'[490] For it was precisely now, I told him, when all the rotten and conceited elements were able to push themselves to the fore without let or hindrance, that the time had at last come to abandon a policy of dissimulation and conciliation and even, if necessary, to be undeterred by a few rows and rumpuses. A party that would sooner let itself be hoodwinked by any and every blockhead, rather than summon up the courage to disavow him in public, might as well pack up. E.g. Kayser.[502]
The Lafargues have been here since Monday" and are staying until the day after tomorrow; we shall see if we can keep Laura here a few days longer. She brought us news that Jenny's catastrophe had gone off all right in Ramsgate,[499] as probably everyone, apart from herself and Longuet, had predicted. Otherwise everything there seems to be going on as well as can be expected.
Since yesterday the weather has been very uncertain, which isn't particularly good for Jollymeier; he had pretty well recovered, fever gone, appetite restored, little pain, but there's now been some kind of check and his improvement is no longer so rapid, though so far he's not actually any worse. Today we had the regatta, on which occasion some rain is de rigueur.b As you are further to the south-west and nearer the Atlantic, I'm afraid you are getting it worse and more at first hand.
Also enclosed an embarrassed letter from Bernstein which I have not yet answered. It would be best if you kept everything
1S August - b inevitable
261. Engels to Marx. 25 August
until further notice; there's no hurry about Bernstein and the noble Jahrbuch can remain quietly in London until I arrive.[503]
From Schorlemmer's point of view, it's a good thing that we stayed here and, indeed, shall be staying here at any rate until the 28th; what happens then will depend on his condition and, of course, the weather. If possible, a few days in the Isle of Wight and places nearby.
Old Ruge, in the youthful guise of a NIGGER[3] SERENADER, has been trotting round the pier today selling programmes for a fireworks' display.
Lafargue and Laura send their love and join us in hoping that you are all still keeping well. Best wishes from Pumps and me to Tussy and you.
Your
F. E.
261
ENGELS TO MARX
IN RAMSGATE[500]
Eastbourne, 25 August 1879 53 Grand Parade
Dear Moor,
I hope you got my letterb sent to the Hôtel de l'Europe, St Hélier, together with an enclosure from Liebknecht to me and a letter (returned) from Hirsch to you.
In the meantime Hirsch has been arrested in Paris and after two days in detention he was compelled to leave the country. He is in London, staying with Lessner. [04] Yesterday I got from him a whole parcel of correspondence to do with the newspaper affair[490]; very interesting. In my view he has acted quite correctly. (He knew my address, as I had sent him a few excerpts, omitting anything offensive, from the letter of Liebknecht's I passed on to you.)D°[5]
I've just received 1. a letter from Höchberg in Scheveningen and 2. one from Bebel,[506] the purpose of both being to induce us to contribute. There's no hurry about a reply as Vollmar, the editor taken on in place of Hirsch, won't be out of jug for another three weeks! A really excellent prelude, this.
I'd send you the whole bag of tricks if I was sure of your address. According to your wife it is 62 Plains of Waterloo, while Laura maintains it's 71. As soon as I know for certain where you are, I'll send you the lot. What an unholy muddle these people have again got themselves into. Liebknecht, Bebel, Viereck, Höchberg, Schramm, Bernstein, they all of them write something different and there's nothing but confusion and contradiction. So all we can do is wait, and at least there'll be no need for us to be disturbed by this business during our holiday.
I wrote at once to Hirsch lD and told him I'd be back in London next Thursday.[3]
You will in the meantime have heard from the Lafargues that they have been here. Unfortunately the weather wasn't up to much.
How's Jenny getting on? As well as could be expected, according to the last news I got from your wife. I hope this is still the case. Give her my love and congratulate her on her strapping boy.b Your refound ability to sleep will, I trust, continue, thereby removing the chief obstacle that prevents you feeling really fit. Let's hope the Ramsgate weather will suit your wife too. Jollymeier is much better, but the changeable weather is a sharp reminder to him that something is still slightly amiss between muscles and joints. Pumps is ALL RIGHT; as usual sea-bathing is doing me a power of good; I think I'm getting properly fat.
If you don't write tomorrow, then better [write] to London. The postal facilities here are antediluvian; a letter posted on Wednesday would not arrive until after our departure.
Best wishes to all of you, and see to it that Jenny doesn't take it upon herself to return home too soon. How long are you staying there?
Your
F. E.
262. Marx to Engels. 25 August
Do you have Kovalevsky's London address, or can I get it from Tussy?
262
MARX TO ENGELS[507]
IN EASTBOURNE[496]
Ramsgate, 25 August 1879 62 Plains of Waterloo
Dear FRED,
My letter from Jersey[12] and yours from Eastbourne" have evidently crossed.
Last Wednesday,0 the very day after we had heard by telegraph of the catastrophe at Ramsgate, we left for London first thing in the morning. For Tussy's sake I was sorry to cut short her stay in Jersey but knew that, for various reasons, my presence had become necessary in Ramsgate. I arrived there on Thursday amidst thunder, lightning and torrents of rain. On Friday it was fine, on Saturday IT RAINED DOGS AND CATS from morn till night, fine again yesterday, outlook uncertain today. Place is full of Jews and fleas.
The main thing is that Jennychen has got safely through the 9 critical days and, CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is reasonably well. For the time being she is feeding the baby herself; most desirable that she should go on being able to do so. My wife is making slow progress but is better nonetheless.
My head's not quite ALL RIGHT yet. Yesterday, by way of a test, I glanced at certain mathematical notebooks I had brought with me, but very soon had to abandon the premature JOB which was done only as a — TEST.
I have not taken and am not taking sea baths, but only warm sea baths; for in consequence of the frightful weather when we arrived in Jersey, my throat trouble got worse and was com-pounded by a sudden toothache, neither being quite gone yet, although much alleviated, and only reminding me by an occasional twinge that they are still lurking in the background.
Hirsch is in London[3]; he had left his visiting card at my house, but I had no time to look him up (he's staying with Lessner) because of my abrupt departure from London. The enclosed letter from Kaub will inform you* of the very odd circumstances attending Hirsch's renewed expulsion from Paris.
I hope that there has been an improvement in Schollymeyer's condition. Kindest regards to him and Pumps to whom in addition Johnny asks to be specially recommended.
Have you read Allman's — or whatever he's called — inaugural speech? It's something I would have been capable of myself, a l t h o u g h NO MAN OF SCIENCE.
Adio, OLD BOY.
Your
Moor
Wright, the head of the Massachusetts LABOR STATISTICS BUREAU, has sent me the complete set of REPORTS FROM 1874 to 1879 (so doesn't know about Harney's earlier consignments), together with the compendium of the Massachusetts Census, and has, at the same time, written to say THAT 'HE SHALL BE PLEASED, IN FUTURE, TO SEND YOU
OUR PUBLICATIONS AS SOON AS ISSUED'.
Such 'politesses' come to us only from Russia and the UNITED STATES.
Dana, my old patron, CALLED LAST FRIDAY[13] AT Maitland Park, Tussy
SENT ME HIS CARD.
263. Engels to Marx. 26 August
263
ENGELS TO MARX
IN RAMSGATE 50°
Eastbourne,[496] 26 August 1879 Dear Moor,
Have at last got your letter[3] and, with it, your exact address which I needed if I was to send you all the rubbish ad vocemh
party organ.[490] Since, for Hirsch's sake, I couldn't put off replying to Höchberg, I wrote him the enclosed note,c which is unlikely to gratify him.
As you will see from Bebel's letter it contains exactly the same arguments as Liebknecht used in his last letter.[501] From this it may be deduced that Liebknecht has not shown him my last letter[509]
although expressly instructed by me to do so. I now intend, as soon as you have sent the stuff back to London, 1. to instruct Bebel to make sure that letter is shown to him, so that he may see that all this palaver has already been answered, 2. to set out side by side for his benefit all the contradictions contained in the various letters written to C. Hirsch, so that he may see what a beastly mess they've gone and made of things again with their free and easy ways. If this is put to him properly, Bebel is, I think, just the man to take advantage of it. I shall, of course, first submit the letter to you for approval, likewise to Hirsch, cujus res agitur.d
We were all very glad to hear that Jenny is doing well. I altogether agree that, if at all possible, she should go on feeding the child herself,[499] give up the School[177] and thus at last rid herself of the BOTHER with NURSES and SERVANTS, the root of that trouble being after all her constant and enforced absence from home. As for you and your wife, you must stay at the seaside for just as long as you possibly can. You both have a lot of leeway to make up and ought not to come back until your head and her digestive organs have again condescended to function pretty well normally. It's not as though there's any hurry now and, besides, the weather is gradually becoming, if not brilliant and settled, at any rate more changeable in a nicer way than of late. It seems much the same where you are as it is here. Jollymeier would be ALL RIGHT if he could have a week of constant sunshine.
I hope, when I again see Tussy, to find her in an improved state
264. Engels to Karl Höchberg. 26 August
of health as a result of sea bathing. If you'd only written and told us, she could have come over here on Saturday" and gone on bathing until the day after tomorrow! In the event, it wasn't till Sunday morning that I learned from the Lafargues that you were in Ramsgate and not where she was at all.
By the way, my three weeks at the seaside have nothing like satisfied me, I'm chewing over all manner of plans for the time when Jollymeier, whom London will probably suit better than the sea, is once again fit to travel. Do you think it would be a good idea if, in about 14 to 18 days' time and WEATHER PERMITTING, we three were to shake off the Eternal-Feminine b for once a n d go and play at being BACHELORS somewhere or other for a week or two?
Warmest regards from all of us to all of you.
Your
F. E.
264
ENGELS T O KARL H Ö C H B E R G
IN SCHEVENINGEN510
Eastbourne, 26 August 1879
Dear Mr Höchberg,
As I do not know how long you will be staying in Scheveningen, I hasten to advise you in reply that you have been misled in regard to the information allegedly given us by C. Hirsch. H e did not assure us that the new newspaper 0 was to be 'your private property', or that it was to 'adopt a moderate attitude'.[511] O u r view of the affair is based, not upon Hirsch's assurances, but upon o u r
265. Marx to Engels. 27 August
appraisal of all the relevant correspondence conducted between Leipzig and Zurich on the one hand and C. Hirsch on the other. I must refrain from going into the whole comedy of errors these letters represent, and in which nobody has been more blameless than Hirsch. In my view his conduct in the whole affair has been perfectly rational, frank and honourable. Hence I must wholeheartedly approve of his decision to refuse the editorship on the terms mooted which have not yet even been settled between the interested parties in Leipzig and Zurich, and at this juncture my only concern is to deflect from him a reproach he does not deserve.
With Social-Democratic greetings,
Yours faithfully,
F. Engels
Back in London as from day after tomorrow [496]
265
MARX TO ENGELS
IN EASTBOURNE[496]
Ramsgate, 27 August 1879 62 Plains of Waterloo
DEAR FRED,
Our letters keep crossing. No doubt you will have had mine (posted last Monday[11]); yours — of 25 Augusth—together with enclosures safely received.
I am only writing a line or two, as my wife is having to go somewhere near the post office, so you will get this acknowledgement of your letter before you leave.
I enclose for the amusement of yourself, Jollymeyer and Pumps, a letter from Tussy to my wife. PLEASE RETURN- IT AT ONCE AFTER PERUSAL.
266. Marx to Engels. 28 August
Jennychen is doing well[499]; is not allowed to leave her room until next Monday and will then have to spend at least another week with us,[500] as Longuet is going back to London earlier.
The weather has been deteriorating from day to day, but it's always tolerable for an hour or two and the SEA BRRFZE is beneficial, showers notwithstanding. It is Liebknecht himself who deserves the 'jackass' label he is seeking, with his habitual loutish courtesy, to pin on Hirsch — something he always does when 'caught' in flagrante.
Best wishes to everyone.
Your
Moor
Kovalevsky's address: 42 Gower Street.
266
MARX TO ENGELS
IN LONDON
[Ramsgate,] 28 August 1879
DEAR FRED,
The enclosed letter from Master Most, forwarded by Tussy,[512]
has just arrived. You must let me know by return what sort of answer you consider suitable. What Most wants is obviously something which he for his part might 'misuse'; on the other hand what Mr Lübeck does is inspired by Mr Bernstein.[3]
A beautiful morning today; whether the weather will hold for the rest of the day is another matter.
Salut.
Your
Moor
267. Marx to Engels. 3 September
PLEASE RETURN THE M O S T LETTER. Yesterday evening, after the rain had stopped, we took Johnny[3]
down to the beach. * Some people said: 'That little boy looks like a prince.' Johnny turned fiercely round and retorted: 'I look like a little Jollymeyer!'
From a letter received from the house Lafargue I see that the other Meyer b—not the Jollymeyer — had another scene at Lafargues. Poor fellow! *
267
MARX TO ENGELS
IN LONDON
Ramsgate, 3 September 1879 62 Plains of Waterloo Dear Engels,
Meyer (R.) wrotec and announced his intention of visiting me, while at the same time saying, on the other hand, that I was to let him know, i.e. telegraph him, 'DO NOT COME', should I be otherwise engaged. FIRSTLY, therefore, I telegraphed him in the 'negative', secondly, however, proceeded to write him a letter [2] * to this effect, that in consequence of Mrs Marx's bad health my whole time is taken up 'presently'*. I am telling you this in order that you may know how things stand, should he raise the matter with you. In fact my wife is IMPROVING only very slowly and hence BY NO
MEANS ANXIOUS TO SEE MEYER HERE.
Jennychen had her first outing today, a fifteen minute walk[499];
SHE PROGRESSES FAVOURABLY.
How is Jolly getting on?
Your
Moor
268. Engels to Johann Philipp Becker. 8 September
268
ENGELS TO JOHANN PHILIPP BECKER
IN GENEVA
London, 8 September 1879
Dear Old Man,
I am sorry to hear that you are still in the clutches of misfortune and it's not within my power to extricate you from them altogether. In the meantime I have been able to place two pounds at your disposal, and have also received a third from a friend/' who is both a chemist and a communist of the first water; I have just taken out a money order for you in respect of these three pounds, vulgo 75 fr. 60, and hope it will be paid you without delay. It goes without saying, of course, that you need feel absolutely no embarrassment where I am concerned; anything I can do for you will always be done without fail, and always with pleasure, and it's disgraceful we shouldn't have reached the stage of ensuring our veterans a carefree existence.
The Freiheit is unlikely to survive until the new year, unless it derives a new importance from the stupidities of its opponents. It is intended to set up an official party organ in Zurich[490] and to entrust its management — under the ultimate control of the Leipzigers — to Germans in Zurich of whom it cannot be said that they inspire me with confidence. At any rate, in the Jahrbuch for social science edited by Höchberg, one of their number, there are some rather extraordinary things: the party was wrong in making itself out to be a workers' party, brought the Anti-Socialist Law[4]
upon itself by otiose attacks on the bourgeoisie, what was wanted wasn't revolution, but slow, peaceful development, etc.[513] This cowardly twaddle, needless to say, is all of it grist to Most's mill, and he is all agog to exploit it, as you will see from recent numbers of the Freiheit.[514] We had been invited by Leipzig to contribute to the new organb and had, indeed, consented; but since learning who is to be immediately responsible,c we have again cried off, nor, after this Jahrbuch, can there be any intercourse whatever with men who are trying surreptitiously to introduce such twaddle and such toadyism into the party — with Höchberg and Co. The Leipzigers will discover soon enough what kind of allies they have landed themselves with. All in all, it's just about time we took a stand against the philanthropic big and petty bourgeois, the students and professors who are forcing their way into the German party and seeking to water down the proletariat's class struggle against its oppressors till it becomes an institution for universal fraternisation, and this at a moment when the bourgeois, with whom we are supposed to fraternise, have outlawed us, destroyed our presses, disrupted our meetings and delivered us up sans phrase'[1] to the caprices of the police. The German workers are hardly likely to join in such a campaign.
Our people in Russia have scored a signal victory — they have disrupted the Russo-Prussian alliance.b If they hadn't, by their ruthless action, put the fear of God into the Russian government, it would probably have succeeded in overcoming the internal discontent felt by the aristocracy and middle classes over the English ban on the entry of troops into the open city of Constantinople'[115] and the ensuing diplomatic defeat in Berlin.[430]
But as it was, blame for those defeats had to be shifted onto another country, onto Prussia. Though uncle and nephew may have temporarily patched things up at Alexandrovo,[516] the breach is now beyond repair. And, unless there's a catastrophe in Russia very soon, there will be war between Russia and Prussia, a war predicted by the General Council as the inevitable consequence of the French war while this last was still in progress, and which was avoided only with the utmost difficulty in 1873.a1'
Well, keep your pecker up, and drop us a line again soon — a proper letter, since in a mere postcard you can't really get things off your chest.
Warmest regards from Marx and
Your old friend,
F. E.
269. Marx to Engels. 9 September
270. Engels to Marx. 9 September
269
MARX TO ENGELS
IN LONDON
Ramsgate, 9 September 1879 62 Plains of Waterloo
Dear FRED,
Various INCIDENTS have meant that money is visibly running out, whereas I wish to spend another week here,"'00 despite the weather which, since Sunday evening, has been very uncertain.
You will hear more about our sojourn here, which has done me, in particular, a great deal of good, from the Lafargues.
Enclosed a letter from Sorge. Since I haven't got Becker's address with me, and you are corresponding with him anyhow, PLEASE write and tell him to send me the form for the power of attorney*
How are things with Jollymeyer?
Your
K. M.
270
ENGELS TO MARX
IN RAMSGATE s0°
London, 9 September 1879
Dear Moor,
Herewith something from Liebknecht, together with enclosures, in which there would appear to be little that is new, which is why I have been in no hurry to send them. For obvious reasons I have told Hirsch nothing about all this stuff, it being better to avoid unnecessary rows.
Höchberg has written to Hirsch from Scheveningen, virtually asking him to invite him over here and assure him of a good reception, to which Hirsch hasn't deigned to reply. On receiving a further postcard from Höchberg, Hirsch sent him a ditto, saying you weren't back yet and he himself, Hirsch, was likewise about to leave for the coast. So we probably shan't be bothered by the man.
Meanwhile it might be a good thing if you were to return the documents to me. I really ought to reply to Bebel at long last[506]
1. on account of Hirsch, who would like to see his personal business clarified vis-à-vis Bebel and is getting a bit impatient and
2. because by good fortune the Jahrbuch Kovalevsky brought you will enable us quite simply to give the chaps definite reasons why it's absolutely impossible for us to contribute to an organ in which Höchberg has any say at all. The articles concerned are:
1. 'Rückblicke auf die sozialistische Bewegung in Deutschland' by * » (Höchberg and, probably, Bernstein and Lübeck),[513]
2. Critiques by C. L. (Lübeck), notably of Cohn's 'Was ist Sozialismus'? concluding part,
3. Report from Germany No. 1 by M. Sch. (Max Schlesinger in Breslau).b
Höchberg declares outright that the Germans made a mistake when they turned the socialist movement into a mere workers' movement and, by unnecessarily provoking the bourgeois, drew down upon themselves the Anti-Socialist Law[462]! The movement ought, he says, to be placed under the direction of bourgeois and educated elements, its character to be wholly that of peaceable reform, etc. You can imagine with what GUSTO Most embraces these lamentable propositions, and once again makes himself out to be the genuine representative of the German movement.[514]
Enfin,c I believe — and no doubt you will share my opinion— that, after this business, we would be well-advised to establish our standpoint — vis-à-vis the Leipzigers, at least. If the new party organ plays the same tune as Höchberg, we might be compelled to do so publicly as well.[3]
If you will let me have the things (I've still got one copy of the Jahrbuch here), I will draft a letter to Bebel and send it to you; needless to say, there's no need for you to interrupt your holiday on account of this trifle. But something has got to be done soon, otherwise Hirsch will again start writing private letters to all and sundry, thus lending the affair much too exclusively a personal character.
Ever since Russian diplomacy has had to allow events inside Russia dictate its goals, everything's been going wrong for it. At the very time when nihilists and pan-Slavs are so thoroughly demolishing its German alliance[13] that any apparent patching-up can at most be short-lived, at this same time, its agents in Afghanistan are driving England — in the event of war with Germany — into the arms of Bismarck. Bismarck, I am sure, is doing everything he can to bring about war with Russia. In concert with Austria and England, he could risk it all right: England would ensure Denmark's neutrality, probably Italy's and maybe even that of France. But it would be better if things were to come rapidly to a head in Russia, and the prospect of war be eliminated by an internal upheaval. The position is beginning to favour Bismarck too much. A simultaneous war against Russia and France would become a struggle for national survival and the resulting outburst of chauvinism would put paid to our movement for years to come. And on top of that, the odds would be greatly in Bismarck's favour the moment England acceded: a long, hard fight, but at 3:2 the eventual outcome would be much as in the Seven Years' War.[318]
Sam Moore writes to say that the sale of the ESTATE has so far been going very well, most of it having been sold for 39-40 times the amount of the gross rent; nothing remains unsold but the moors and woods which they assess at £11,600, including stocks of timber, and think they can hang on to until business improves in Sheffield, when they might succeed in getting a better price.
What has become of the Lafargues? Since Pumps went to see them a week ago on Fridayb we've neither heard nor seen anything of Paul.
jollymeier is still tinkering away at his rheumatism which refuses to budge. Gumpert advised him to go to Buxton and yesterday he said that, unless it gets better soon, he would go there at the end
271. Marx to Engels. 10 September
of the week. He, Pumps and I send you all our cordial regards and trust that life at the seaside is doing you good. What are your plans about coming back[500]? Put it off as long as you possibly can; what with the changeable weather, I know what will happen once you're back here — nowt as anyone could wish for.a
Your
F. E.
271
MARX TO ENGELS
IN LONDON
Ramsgate, 10 September 1879 62 Plains of Waterloo DEAR FRED,
Yesterday I got a note from Kovalevsky saying he had had a letter from Russia which necessitated his immediate return to the land of his birth. He didn't send me the Jahrbuch}
Laura spent a week with us, and Paul a few days every now and again; the day before yesterday he returned with her to London. Laura, by the by, had let Pumptia know she was leaving.
My wife is still making very slow progress; I have got much better.[500] The air down here suits me extraordinarily well. Besides, I was kept in mouvement perpétuel by Laura.
Herewith the letters received from you today. (The others will go off at the same time, but under separate cover.) Liebknecht has no discernment. The letters prove what they are intended to refute, namely our original view that the business was bungled in Leipzig, whereas the men in Zurich proceeded in accordance with the terms prescribed for them.[490] Incidentally, their HORROR at the attack made by the otherwise so innocuous Laterne on that scoundrel Kayser[519] shows more clearly than anything else what is the calibre of these chaps. Schramm, though a sound man in other respects, has always been a philistine. The Leipzigers for their part are already so 'parliamentarily minded' that they regard criticism of one member of their Reichstag coterie as a crime de lèse majesté.
I altogether agree with your view that no further time should be lost in stating our views, forcibly and ruthlessly, as to the Jahrbuch bunkum,[513] i.e. pro nunc* 'presenting' it to the Leipzigers in black and white. Should they proceed to go ahead with their 'party organ' in this way, we shall have to disavow them publicly. In such matters, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
I haven't replied to Most,b nor shall I do so; as soon as I'm in London I shall write, inviting him to turn up in person. You ought to be present at the meeting.
The most typical thing about Bismarck is the way in which he came to be at odds with Russia. He wanted Gorchakov removed and Shuvalov put in his place. Since this miscarried, the obvious conclusion was—voilà l'ennemi!c And you may be pretty sure that Bûcher did not fail to exacerbate his master's irritation. On retourne toujours à son premier amour.d From the point of view of our movement and of Europe generally, nothing could be more injurious than the implementation of Bismarck's plan. So long as old Williame is alive, this won't be so easy; it might always happen that Bismarck himself falls victim to the reaction he sparked off with the Anti-Socialist Law.[462] En attendant,[1] the black cloud [32]° in the east is already doing him a service; once again he is the 'man they need' and the liberals now feel it to be their 'patriotic' duty to kiss his arse. Not only will the iron military budget be renewed at the next sitting of the Reichstag; it might be 'perpetuated', as William originally wished. The secret of Russian diplomacy's success ABROAD was the deathly silence OF RUSSIA AT HOME, the spell being broken by the movement in that country. Its final victory was the Treaty of Paris of 1856.[32]' Since then, nothing but blunders.
I HOPE POOR SCHOLLYMEYER'S HEALTH WILL IMPROVE. M Y BEST WISHES FOR HIM.
Your
Moor
272. Engels to Marx. 11 September
272
ENGELS TO MARX
IN RAMSGATE MO
London, 11 September 1879
Dear Moor,
Letters received." Yesterday Hirsch called at my house where he also encountered the Lafargues and Henry Juta; he is going to bring me the stuff I had returned to him earlier on, and then I shall set to work forthwith.0
Laura and Paul, i.e. notably the latter, said they would be coming again next Sunday evening/ Much though we appreciate this, it is a matter that calls for careful consideration on account of Tussy. Since our return, she has been dining with us on Sundays and I shall, needless to say, invite her for next Sunday as well. As Paul had said the Longuets would be returning this week, I had thought of going to see Jenny tomorrow or the day after and asking her to help me out of this quandary by taking over Tussy for the evening. But on leaving, Laura said that Jenny wouldn't be back till Saturday, and so I have no other recourse than to contrive things in this way. If it's feasible, let me know at once; if not, some other way out must be found. The Lafargues never arrive before 7 o'clock.
Kindest regards. For three days now Jollymeier has been much better — Buxton probably not necessary.d
Your
F. E.
273. Marx to Engels. 11 September
273
MARX TO ENGELS
IN LONDON
[Ramsgate,] 11 September 1879 62 Plains of Waterloo
DEAR FRED,
Letter and enclosure[3] received with many thanks. The Longuet family will be 'making' for London, as Lessner puts it, on Saturday (next).b So far all has gone well with Jennychen, although she still has a bit of asthma, but she proposes — obstinately, à la Lupus[12]—to combine feeding her child d
Yesterday, to my intense surprise, Meyer" suddenly materialised in front of me on the SANDS. TO my relief, he immediately explained that he had taken lodgings for the day in Margate whither he would be returning in a few hours' time, and that all he wanted was to inquire about 'madameV' health, etc. I did the honours of the place for a while and then handed him over to Longuet so that he might speed him on his way. He — Meyer — is going to Edinburgh for the TRADES UNION CONGRESS.[522] I'm glad this 'crisis' was so short-lived. The good fellow's tendency towards Ramsgate has been IRREPRESSIBLE. He told Longuet, by the by, that his liver had got much worse so that he could no longer 'take' the accustomed amount of 'spirits' without their going to his head. An attempt, no doubt, to gloss over his recent ACCIDENTS at Maitland Park, etc.
The weather here is partly good and partly bad, the latter having a tendency to predominate.
Your
Moor
276. Marx and Engels to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilheim Bracke and Others ( Circular Letter). 17- 18 September
274. Marx to Engels. 14 September
274
MARX TO ENGELS
IN LONDON
[Ramsgate,] 14 September 187952S
Dear FRED,
Tell Tussy that she is invited to 2 o'clock dinner at Jenny's on Sunday and to a display of Edgar 'Marcel' Longuet who was today registered a British citizen at Ramsgate.
For Jennychen and suite leave for London tomorrow; ditto Helene[3] to give her SUPPORT.
CHEQUE encashable Monday. I have discovered another letter from Hirsch to myself which belongs in the dossierb of the case; I enclose it.
Salut.
Your
Moor
275. Engels to Johann Philipp Becker. 15 September
Dear Old Man,
I trust you got my last letterc and the money order for 75 frs by post.
Sorge writes saying that he has written to you, too, about the necessity of renewing the power of attorney in respect of Lingenau's will, since Geib's death might otherwise put the lawyers of the contending party into the position of being able to declare the old power of attorney invalid and thus bring about new delays.[348]
Marx, who is still at the seaside[500] and has apparently made a wonderful recovery, has just written telling me to ask you to send him the form for the power of attorney[3] so that he can attend to the same. Would you therefore be so good as to do this as soon as possible. If it involves you in any expense, write and tell me at once what it amounts to and I will send you the money. The sooner this is done the better. The power of attorney should, of course, be exactly the same as before, only omitting Geib's name, or else mentioning him as deceased.
The business of the German party organ in Zurich[490] is becoming more and more of a lark. The Zurich editorial committee which, under the general management of the Leipzigers, is to supervise and censor the paper, consists of Höchberg, Schramm and Bernstein. But now, in the Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, published in Zurich by Höchberg, Schramm, Höchberg and Bernstein have printed an article 'Rückblick auf die sozialistische Bewegung in Deutschland'[513] in which all three are revealed to be common or garden bourgeois and pacific philanthropists; they accuse the party of having been too exclusively a 'workers' party', and of having provoked the hatred of the bourgeoisie, and claim that leadership of the movement should be entrusted to 'educated' bourgeois of their own stamp. That's really going a bit too far.
Luckily Höchberg dropped in on me unexpectedly the day before yesterday, whereupon I gave him a piece of my mind. The unfortunate lad — not a bad chap, au fond,h but alarmingly naive — came down to earth with a bang when I pointed out to him that we couldn't think of lowering the proletarian flag which we had held aloft for nigh on 40 years, still less join in the general petty-bourgeois fraternisation fantasies against which we had been fighting, again for nigh on 40 years. In short, now he at last knows where he stands with us and also why, whatever the Leipzigers may say or do, we can't march shoulder to shoulder with people of his ilk.
We shall likewise supply Bebel with a quite categorical statement as to our standpoint vis-à-vis these allies of the German party,c and then wait and see what they will do. If the party organ adopts the standpoint of the said bourgeois article, we shall publicly declare our opposition to it. However, they're unlikely to let things go so far.
Write soon, then. Warmest regards from Marx and
Your old friend,
F. Engels
276
MARX and ENGELS TO AUGUST BEBEL, WILHELM LIEBKNECHT,
WILHELM BRACKE AND OTHERS[524]
(CIRCULAR LETTER)[525]
IN LEIPZIG
[Draft]
[London, 17-18 September 1879] Dear Bebel,
The delay in replying to your letter of 20 a August has been due, on the one hand, to Marx's prolonged absence[500] and, on the other, to a number of incidents: first, the arrival of the 'Richter' Jahrbuch,[513] secondly that of Höchberg himself.b
I can only conclude that Liebknecht did not show you the last letter I wrote him, although I specifically instructed him to do so. Otherwise you would certainly not have adduced the same reasons as had been put forward by Liebknecht, and to which I had already replied in the aforesaid letter.D°[9]
Let us now run through the individual points with which we are concerned here.
were available and who was providing them? Firstly, so as to know whether the paper might not peter out within a few months. Secondly, to ascertain who held the purse-strings, thus having the final say as to the paper's stance. Liebknecht's reply, telling Hirsch that 'everything is in order; you will be getting further information from Zurich' (Liebknecht to Hirsch, 28 July), didn't arrive.[526]
But what did reach Hirsch from Zurich was a letter from Bernstein (24 July) in which Bernstein informed him that ' We are being entrusted with the production and supervision (of the paper)'. A discussion had taken place 'between Viereck, Singer and ourselves' during which it was suggested
'that your position might be rendered somewhat difficult by the differences of opinion which you, as a Laterne man, have had with individual comrades, though I myself do not consider this objection carries much weight'.
Not a word about the financing. Hirsch answered by return on 26 July, enquiring about the paper's material circumstances. Which comrades had undertaken to cover the deficit? Up to what amount and for how long?—The question of the editor's salary didn't enter into this at all; Hirsch
merely wanted to know whether 'means have been secured to ensure the paper's continued existence for at least a year'.
On 31 July, Bernstein replied, saying that any deficit there might be would be covered by voluntary contributions of which some (!) had already been subscribed. Hirsch's remarks about the stance he thought the paper should adopt, of which more below, elicited deprecating remarks and injunctions:
'It is all the more necessary for the supervisory committee to insist on it in that it, in turn, is subject to control, i.e. is responsible. On these points, therefore, you must come to an understanding with the supervisory committee.'
They asked him to reply by return preferably by telegraph. Hence, instead of getting a reply to his justified questions, Hirsch was informed that he was to be editor under a supervisory committee based in Zurich, with views differing very materially from his own and members of whose names he wasn't even informed!
Hirsch, quite justifiably outraged by this treatment, chose rather to come to an understanding with the Leipzigers. His letter of 2 August to Liebknecht must be known to you, since Hirsch
expressly demanded that it be shown to you and Viereck. Hirsch is even willing to submit to a supervisory committee in Zurich, inasmuch as the latter is to put its comments to the editor in writing and these may be referred for decision to the controlling committee in Leipzig.[027] In the meantime Liebknecht had written to Hirsch on 28 July:
'Of course finance is available for the undertaking, seeing that it is backed by the entire party+(iNCLUSlVE) Höchberg. But I'm not concerned with the details.'
Nor does Liebknecht's next letter contain anything about the financing — only an assurance that the Zurich committee is not an editorial committee, but is only to be entrusted with administration and the financial side. As late as 14 August, Liebknecht wrote to me along the same lines, and asked that we persuade Hirsch to accept. You yourself, as late as 20 August were still so little acquainted with the actual circumstances that you wrote to me saying:
'He' (Höchberg) 'has no more say in the editing of the paper than any other well-known member of the party.'
Finally, Hirsch received a letter from Viereck, dated 11 August, containing the admission that
'the 3 men domiciled in Zurich are to, qua editorial committee, apply themselves to founding the paper and, subject to the agreement of the three Leipzigers, select an editor ... so far as I recall, the resolutions that were sent them also asserted that the (Zurich) founding committee mentioned under 2., was to assume both political and financial responsibility towards the party.... From this state of affairs it follows, or so it seems to me, that ... there can be no question of anyone assuming the editorship without the concurrence of the 3 men domiciled in Zurich and entrusted with the founding by the party'.
Here as last was something definite, at least, for Hirsch to go on, if only in regard to the position of the editor vis-à-vis the Zürichers. They were an editorial committee; they were also politically responsible; without their concurrence no one could assume the editorship. In short, Hirsch was simply instructed to come to an understanding with 3 men in Zurich whose names had still not been disclosed to him.
But to make the confusion worse, Liebknecht added a postscript to Viereck's letter:
'Singer from Berlin was here just now and informed us that the supervisory committee in Zurich is not, as Viereck imagines, an editorial committee, but essentially an administrative committee which is financially responsible to the party, i.e. to ourselves, for the paper; of course, its members also have the right and the duty to discuss the editing with you (a right and a duty of which, by the way, every member is possessed); they are not empowered to place you under their guardianship.'
The Zurich trio and one member of the Leipzig committee — the only one* present at the discussions — insist that Hirsch is to be subject to official direction by Zurich, while another Leipzig member[3] contests this outright. And yet Hirsch is to make up his mind before these gentlemen are agreed amongst themselves! The fact that Hirsch was entitled to acquaint himself with the resolutions they had adopted and which embodied the conditions with which he was expected to comply, was entirely overlooked, the more so since it never seems to have occurred to the Leipzigers that they themselves should become properly acquainted with those resolutions. How, otherwise, can the above-mentioned inconsistency be accounted for?
If the Leipzigers were unable to agree upon the powers vested in the Zurich people, the latter harboured no doubts on this score.
Schramm to Hirsch, 14 August:
'Had you not written at one time that in a similar case' (as that of Kayser),[15] 'you would do just as you had done before, thus holding out the prospect of a similar modus operandi,[519] we would not be wasting words on the subject. As it is, however, and in view of that statement of yours, we must reserve the right to have the casting vote as to what articles the new paper should take.'
The letter to Bernstein in which Hirsch was alleged to have said this was dated 26 July, long after the conference in Zurich at which the Zurich trio's powers were laid down. But so much were those in Zurich already revelling in the sense of their own bureaucratic authority that, in reply to this subsequent letter of Hirsch's, they were already laying claim to new powers, namely the decision as to what articles should be included. The editorial committee was already a censorship committee.
Not until Höchberg arrived in Paris did Hirsch learn from him the names of the members of the two committees.[528]
If, then, discussions with Hirsch broke down, what was the cause?
1. The obstinate refusal, on the part of both Leipzig and Zurich, to give him any hard and fast information about the paper's financial basis and hence the likelihood of keeping it afloat, if only for a year. Not until he was over here did he learn from me (following your communication to me[506]) how much had been subscribed. Hence, the only conclusion it was really possible to draw from previous communications (the party + Höchberg) was either that the paper was already being largely financed by Höchberg or that it would soon be entirely dependent on his subsidies. And this latter eventuality is still far from being excluded. The sum of — if I read it right — 800 marks is precisely the same (40 pounds sterling) as had to be contributed by the local association, Freiheit,*[29] during the first half year.
2. Liebknecht's repeated assurances, which have since proved totally erroneous, that Zurich was to have no official control whatever over the editorship, and the resulting comedy of errors;
3. The certainty finally established that not only were the Zurich people to control the editing, they were actually to censor it, and that the only role that would redound upon him, Hirsch, would be that of the man of straw.
His refusal at that juncture is something we cannot but approve. The Leipzig committee, or so we hear from Höchberg,[330]
has received reinforcements in the shape of two more who do not live in the place(1) and hence that committee can intervene quickly only if the three Leipzigers are agreed. As a result, the real centre of gravity has altogether shifted to Zurich, and Hirsch or, for that matter, any true revolutionary and proletarian-minded editor, would not have been able to work with the people there for any length of time. More about this later.
II. THE PROPOSED STANCE OF THE PAPER
As early as 24 July Bernstein had informed Hirsch that the differences he, as a Laterne man, had had with individual comrades would render his position more difficult.
Hirsch repliedb that in his view the paper's stance would in general have to be the same as that of the Laterne, i.e. such as to avoid prosecution in Switzerland and not cause undue alarm in Germany. He inquired who those comrades might be and continued:
'I know of only one and can promise you that in a similar case of undisciplined conduct I should deal with him in exactly the same way.'
Whereupon Bernstein, conscious of his newly acquired dignity as official censor, replied:
'Now as regards the paper's stance, it is the view of the supervisory committee that the Laterne should not serve as a model; in our view the paper should be less taken up with political radicalism, but rather adopt a line that is socialist on principle. Instances such as the attack upon Kayser, which was frowned on by all comrades without exception' (!), 'must under all circumstances be avoided.'c
And so on and so forth. Liebknecht called the attack on Kayser 'a bloomer', and so dangerous did it seem to Schramm that he immediately imposed censorship on Hirsch.d Hirsch again wrote to Höchberg, saying that a case such as that of Kayser
'could not occur should an official party organ exist, whose lucid expositions and friendly hints could not be so presumptuously brushed aside by a deputy'.
Viereck also wrote, saying that what was required of the new paper was that it adopt a
'dispassionate attitude and, in so far as possible, bury the hatchet'; it ought not to be an 'enlarged version of the Laterne' and 'the most Bernstein can be reproached with is that he holds views that are too moderate, if reproach it be at a time when we cannot, after all, crowd on sail'.
Well, now, what is this Kayser case, this unpardonable crime Hirsch is supposed to have committed? In the Reichstag, Kayser spoke in favour of and voted for protective tariffs, the only one of the Social-Democratic deputies to do so. Hirsch accused him of having infringed party discipline, in that Kayser
1. voted for indirect taxation, the abolition of which is expressly demanded by the party programme";
2. voted Bismarck funds, thus infringing the first and fundamental rule of our party tactics: not a farthing for this government.
Hirsch is undeniably right on both counts. And, after Kayser had spurned, on the one hand, the party programme to which the deputies, by their resolution in congress, had in effect been solemnly pledged and, on the other hand, the most imperative and all-important rule of party tactics, after he had voted Bismarck funds, out of gratitude for the Anti-Socialist Law*[6] Hirsch was again perfectly justified in our opinion in handling him as roughly as he did.
We have never understood how it was that this attack upon Kayser could have aroused such a furore in Germany. I am now told by Höchberg that it was the 'faction' which gave Kayser permission to act as he did, and Kayser is held to be covered by that permission.
If such is the case, then it is really too bad. In the first place, Hirsch could have known no more than the rest of the world about this secret resolution. Then, again, the discredit incurred by the party, for which previously Kayser alone could have been blamed, is all the greater for this affair, as is Hirsch's merit in having brought to light in public and for all the world to see Kayser's preposterous phraseology and his even more preposterous vote, thus saving the honour of the party. Or has German Social-Democracy indeed been infected with the parliamentary disease, believing that, with the popular vote, the Holy Ghost is poured upon those elected, that meetings of the faction are transformed into infallible councils and factional resolutions into sacrosanct dogma?
Admittedly, a bloomer has been made — not by Hirsch, however, but by the deputies who gave Kayser the protection of their resolution. And if those upon whom, above all others, it is incumbent to see that party discipline is maintained, themselves so glaringly infringe that party discipline by a resolution of this kind, then so much the worse. But it is even worse still if they have the audacity to believe that it was not Kayser, by his speech and vote, or the other deputies by their resolution, who infringed party discipline, but Hirsch, inasmuch as he attacked Kayser despite that resolution about which, moreover, he knew nothing.
For the rest, there can be no doubt that the policy the party had adopted towards the question of protective tariffs was as muddled and vacillating as it has always been in regard to virtually all economic questions — e.g. imperial railways[5] —when they have become a practical issue. The reason for this is that the party organs, notably the Vorwärts, rather than subject such questions to a thorough discussion, have preferred to apply themselves to the construction of the future social order. When, subsequent to the Anti-Socialist Law, the question of protective tariffs suddenly became a live issue, views on the subject diverged, assuming a wide variety of nuances, and there was absolutely no one to hand possessing the qualification that would have enabled him to form a lucid and accurate opinion, namely a knowledge of conditions in German industry and the latter's position in the world market. Again, as was bound to happen, protectionist tendencies cropped up here and there amongst the electorate; tendencies which, it was felt, ought also to be taken into consideration. The only possible way out of the confusion would have been to take a purely political view of the question (as was done in the Laterne), but this was not pursued with any determination. Thus it was inevitable that in this debate, the party acted for the first time in a hesitant, uncertain and muddled way and ended up by thoroughly discrediting itself through the person of and in company with Kayser.
The attack on Kayser is now being used as a pretext to admonish Hirsch, in tones ranging through the whole gamut, to the effect that the new paper must on no account repeat the excesses of the Laterne, must be less taken up with political radicalism and rather adopt a line that is socialist on principle and dispassionate. And this from Viereck no less than from Bernstein who, precisely because he is too moderate, appears to the former to be the right man, seeing that just now we cannot, after all, crowd on sail.
But why go abroad at all, unless one intends to crowd on sail? Abroad, there's nothing to prevent this being done. In Switzerland there are no German press, combination and penal laws. Hence, not only can one say things there, which could not, even before the Anti-Socialist Law, be said at home because of the ordinary German laws, but one is actually duty-bound to do so. For here one is under the eyes, not of Germany alone, but of Europe and it is one's duty, insofar as the Swiss laws allow, openly to proclaim for Europe's benefit the methods and aims of the German party. Anyone in Switzerland seeking to abide by the German laws would only prove that he is deserving of those German laws and that he has, in effect, nothing to say save what he was allowed to say in Germany before the Exceptional Law. Nor should any account be taken of the possibility that the editors might be temporarily deprived of the chance to return to Germany. Anyone who is not prepared to run that risk is not fit to occupy so exposed and honourable a post.
More. If the German party was ostracised by the Exceptional Law, this was precisely because it was the only serious opposition party in Germany. If, in an organ published abroad, it renders thanks to Bismarck by abandoning its role as the only serious opposition party, by behaving in a nice, docile manner and adopting a dispassionate stance when kicked, it only proves that it deserved to be kicked. Of all the German émigré papers that have appeared abroad since 1830, the Laterne is undoubtedly one of the most moderate. If, however, even the Laterne was too insolent— then the new organ could not but compromise the party in the eyes of sympathisers in non-German countries.
III. THE MANIFESTO OF THE ZURICH TRIO
In the meantime we have received Höchberg's Jahrbuch, containing an article, 'Rückblicke auf die sozialistische Bewegung in Deutschland',[3] which, as Höchberg himself informed me, was actually written by the three members of the Zurich committee.b
Here we have their authentic critique of the movement up till now, and hence their authentic programme for the new paper's stance insofar as this is dependent on them. At the very start we read:
'The movement, regarded by Lassalle as an eminently political one, to which he sought to rally not only the workers but all honest democrats, and in the van of which were to march the independent representatives of science and all men imbued with a true love of mankind, was trivialised under the chairmanship of J. B. von Schweitzer into a one-sided struggle of the industrial workers to promote their own interests'c
I shall not inquire whether and to what extent this is historically true. The specific charge against Schweitzer is that Schweitzer trivialised Lassalleanism, here regarded as a bourgeois democratic-philanthropic movement, into a one-sided struggle of the industrial workers to promote their own interests—trivialised it by emphasising its character as a class struggle of industrial workers against the bourgeoisie.0 He is further charged with having 'repudiated bourgeois democracy'.e But has bourgeois democracy any business to be in the Social-Democratic Party at all? If it consists of 'honest men', it surely cannot wish to join, and if it
a See this volume, p. 394. - b Höchberg, Bernstein and Schramm - c Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, p. 84. - d These two sentences were substituted by the authors for the following passage deleted in the manuscript: 'Schweitzer was a great blackguard, but very talented intellectually. His particular merit consisted in his having broken free of the original, narrow Lassalleanism with its limited panacea of state aid... Whatever wrong he may have done out of corrupt motives and however much, too, he may have clung to the Lassallean panacea of state aid in order to preserve his domination, he nevertheless had the merit of having broken free of the original, narrow Lassalleanism, of having broadened the party's economic horizons and thus paved the way for its subsequent merger with the German party as a whole. The class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie, that pivot of all revolutionary socialism, had already been advocated by Lassalle. If Schweitzer stressed this point even more strongly it was, at any rate, a step forward so far as the cause was concerned, however much of a pretext he may thus have afforded dangerous individuals for calling his dictatorship in question. It may rightly be said that he turned Lassalleanism into a one-sided struggle of the industrial workers to promote their own interests. But one-sided only in the sense that, for reasons that were politically corrupt, he wished to have nothing to do with the farm workers' struggle to promote their own interests vis-à-vis the big landowners. It is not that with which he is reproached here; rather the 'trivialisation' consists in his emphasising its character as a class struggle of industrial workers against the bourgeoisie.' - e Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, p. 84.
nevertheless wishes to join, this can only be for the purpose of stirring up trouble.
The Lassallean party 'chose to present itself in a most one-sided manner as a workers' party '.a The gentlemen who wrote those words are themselves members of a party which presents itself in the most one-sided manner as a workers' party, and now hold office in the same, Here we have a complete incompatibility. If they think as they write, they ought to leave the party or at least resign from office. If they don't, it is tantamount to admitting that they intend to use their official position to combat the party's proletarian character. Hence the party is betraying itself if it allows them to remain in office.
Thus, in the view of these gentlemen the Social-Democratic Party ought not to be a one-sided workers' party but a many-sided party of 'all men imbued with a true love of mankind'. This it is to prove, above all, by divesting itself of crude proletarian passions and applying itself, under the direction of educated philanthropic bourgeois, 'to the formation of good taste' and 'the acquisition of good manners' (p. 85). After which the 'seedy appearance' of some of the leaders would give way to a respectable 'bourgeois appearance'.[13] (As though the outwardly seedy appearance of those referred to here were not the least that could be held against them!) After which, too,
'there will be an influx of supporters from the ranks of the educated and propertied classes. These, however, must first be won over if the ... agitation engaged in is to have perceptible results...'. German socialism has laid 'too much stress on winning over the masses, thus omitting to prosecute vigorous' (!) 'propaganda amongst the so-called upper strata of society'. For 'the party still lacks men who are fit to represent it in the Reichstag'. It is, however, 'desirable and necessary to entrust the mandates to men who have had the time and the opportunity to become thoroughly conversant with the relevant material. Only rarely and in exceptional cases do ... the simple working man and small master craftsman have sufficient leisure for the purpose'.0
Therefore elect bourgeois! In short, the working class is incapable of emancipating itself by its own efforts. In order to do so it must place itself under the direction of 'educated and propertied' bourgeois who alone have 'the time and the opportunity' to become conversant with what is good for the workers. And, secondly, the bourgeois are not to be combatted — not on your life — but won over by vigorous propaganda.
If, however, you wish to win over the upper strata of society, or
' Ibid., p. 85. - b Ibid., p. 86. - c Ibid., pp. 87-89.
!-406 at least their well-intentioned elements, you mustn't frighten them — not on your life. And here the Zurich trio believe they have made a reassuring discovery:
'Now, at the very time it is oppressed by the Anti-Socialist Law, the party is showing that it does not wish to pursue the path of forcible, bloody revolution, but rather is determined ... to tread the path of legality, i.e. of reform.''[1]
If, therefore, the 5-600,000 Social-Democratic voters, Vio to Vs of the total electorate — and dispersed, what is more, over the length and breadth of the country — have sense enough not to beat their heads against a wall and attempt a 'bloody revolution' with the odds at one to ten, this is supposed to prove that they will, for all time, continue to deny themselves all chance of exploiting some violent upheaval abroad, a sudden wave of revolutionary fervour engendered thereby, or even a people's victory won in a clash arising therefrom! Should Berlin ever be so uneducated as to stage another 18 March,[532] it would behove the Social-Democrats not to take part in the fighting as 'louts besotted with barricades' (p. 88) but rather to 'tread the path of legality', to placate, to clear away the barricades and, if necessary, march with the glorious army against the one-sided, crude, uneducated masses. Or if the gentlemen insist that that's not what they meant, then what did they mean?
But there's better in store.
'Hence, the more calm, sober and considered it' (the Party) 'shows itself to be in its criticism of existing circumstances and its proposals to change the same, the less likelihood is there of a repetition of the present successful move' (introduction of the Anti-Socialist Law) 'by means of which conscious reaction has scared the bourgeoisie out of their wits by holding up the red spectre' (p. 88).
In order to relieve the bourgeoisie of the last trace of anxiety, it is to be shown clearly and convincingly that the red spectre really is just a spectre and doesn't exist. But what is the secret of the red spectre, if not the bourgeoisie's fear of the inevitable life-and-death struggle between itself and the proletariat, fear of the unavoidable outcome of the modern class struggle? Just abolish the class struggle, and the bourgeoisie and 'all independent persons' will 'not hesitate to go hand in hand with the proletarians'! b In which case the ones to be hoodwinked would be those self-same proletarians.
Let the party, therefore, prove, by its humble and subdued demeanour, that it has renounced once and for all the 'impro-prieties and excesses'b which gave rise to the Anti-Socialist Law. If it voluntarily undertakes to remain wholly within the bounds of the Anti-Socialist Law, Bismarck and the bourgeoisie will, no doubt, oblige by rescinding what would then be a redundant law!
'Let no one misunderstand us'; we don't want 'to relinquish our party and our programme,d but in our opinion we shall have enough to do for years to come if we concentrate our whole strength, our entire energies, on the attainment of certain immediate objectives which must in any case be won before there can be any thought of realising more ambitious aspirations.''
Then, too, the bourgeois, petty-bourgeois and workers, who 'are now scared off ... by ambitious demands',"[1] will join us en masse.
The programme is not to be relinquished, but merely postponed— for some unspecified period. They accept it — not for themselves in their own lifetime but posthumously, as an heirloom for their children and their children's children. Meanwhile they devote their 'whole strength and energies' to all sorts of trifles, tinkering away at the capitalist social order so that at least something should appear to be done without at the same time alarming the bourgeoisie. Here I can only commend that communist, Miquel, who gives proof of his unshakable belief in the inevitable downfall of capitalist society within the next few hundred years by swindling it for all he's worth, contributing manfully to the crash of 1873, [95] and thus really doing something towards the collapse of the existing order.[033]
Another offence against good manners was the 'exaggerated attacks on the Gründer',[118] who, after all, were 'only children of their time'; hence 'the vilification of Strousberg and suchlike men ... would have been better omitted'.e Sadly we are all 'children of our time', and if this be sufficient grounds for excuse, it is no longer permissible to attack anyone, and we for our part would have to desist from all polemic, all struggle; we would calmly submit whenever kicked by our opponents, because we would know in our wisdom that they are 'only children of their time' and cannot act otherwise than they do. Instead of repaying them their kicks with interest, we should rather, it seems, feel sorry for the poor fellows.
Similarly, our support for the Commune had one drawback, at any rate, namely wholly exonerated from having brought about the October Law, for it had needlessly exacerbated the hatred of the bourgeoisie'.[3]
There you have the programme of the three censors of Zurich. As regards clarity, it leaves nothing to be desired. Least of all so far as we're concerned, since we are still only too familiar with all these catch-phrases of 1848. There are the voices of the representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, terrified lest the proletariat, impelled by its revolutionary situation, should 'go too far'. Instead of resolute political opposition — general conciliation; instead of a struggle against government and bourgeoisie — an attempt to win them over and talk them round; instead of defiant resistance to maltreatment from above — humble subjection and the admission that the punishment was deserved. Every historically necessary conflict is reinterpreted as a misunderstanding and every discussion wound up with the assurance: we are, of course, all agreed on the main issue. The men who in 1848 entered the arena as bourgeois democrats might now just as well call themselves Social-Democrats. To the former, the democratic republic was as unattainably remote as the overthrow of the capitalist order is to the latter, and therefore utterly irrelevant to present political practice; one can conciliate, compromise, philan-thropise to one's heart's content. The same thing applies to the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. On paper it is recognised because there is no denying it any longer, but in practice it is glossed over, suppressed, emasculated. The Social-Democratic Party should not be a workers' party, it should not bring upon itself the hatred of the bourgeoisie or, for that matter, of anyone else; above all, it should prosecute vigorous propaganda amongst the bourgeoisie; instead of laying stress on ambitious goals which are calculated to frighten off the bourgeoisie, and unattainable anyway in our own generation, it should rather devote all its strength and energies to those petty-bourgeois stop-gap reforms which provide new props for the old social order and which might, perhaps, transform the ultimate catastrophe into a gradual, piecemeal and, as far as possible, peaceable process of dissolution. These are the same people who keep up an appearance of ceaseless activity, yet not only do nothing themselves but also try to ensure that nothing at all is done save — chin-wagging; the same people whose fear of any kind of action in 1848 and '49 held back the movement at every step and finally brought about its downfall; the same people who never see reaction and then are utterly dumbfounded to find themselves at last in a blind alley in which neither resistance nor flight is possible; the same people who want to confine history within their narrow philistine horizons, and over whose heads history invariably proceeds to the order of the day.
As for their socialist import, this has already been adequately criticised in the Manifesto, Chapter: 'German, or "True" Socialism'. Wherever the class struggle is thrust aside as a distasteful, 'crude' manifestation, the only basis still left to socialism will be a 'true love of mankind' and empty phrases about 'justice'.
It is an inevitable manifestation, and one rooted in the process of development, that people from what have hitherto been the ruling class also join the militant proletariat and supply it with educative elements. We have already said so clearly in the Manifesto. But in this context there are two observations to be made:
Firstly, if these people are to be of use to the proletarian movement, they must introduce genuinely educative elements. However, in the case of the vast majority of German bourgeois converts, this is not the case. Neither the Zukunft nor the Neue Gesellschaft has contributed anything that might have advanced the movement by a single step. Here we find a complete lack of genuinely educative matter, either factual or theoretical. In place of it, attempts to reconcile superficially assimilated socialist ideas with the most diverse theoretical viewpoints which these gentlemen have introduced from the university or elsewhere, and of which each is more muddled than the last thanks to the process of decay taking place in what remains of German philosophy today. Instead of first making a thorough study of the new science, each man chose to adapt it to the viewpoint he had brought with him, not hesitating to produce his own brand of science and straightaway assert his right to teach it. Hence there are, amongst these gentlemen, almost as many viewpoints as there are heads; instead of elucidating anything, they have only made confusion worse — by good fortune, almost exclusively amongst themselves. The party can well dispense with educative elements such as these for whom it is axiomatic to teach what they have not learnt.
Secondly, when people of this kind, from different classes, join the proletarian movement, the first requirement is that they should not bring with them the least remnant of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but should unreservedly adopt the proletarian outlook. These gentlemen, however, as already shown, are chock-full of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. In a country as petty-bourgeois as Germany, there is certainly some justification for such ideas. But only outside the Social-Democratic Workers' Party. If the gentlemen constitute themselves a Social-Democratic petty-bourgeois party, they are fully within their rights: in that case we could negotiate with them and, according to circumstances, form an alliance with them, etc. But within a workers' party they are an adulterating element. Should there be any reason to tolerate their presence there for a while, it should be our duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no say in the party leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a matter of time. That time, moreover, would appear to have come. How the party can suffer the authors of this article to remain any longer in their midst seems to us incomprehensible. But should the party leadership actually pass, to a greater or lesser extent, into the hands of such men, then the party will be emasculated no less, and that will put paid to its proletarian grit.
As for ourselves, there is, considering all our antecedents, only one course open to us. For almost 40 years we have emphasised that the class struggle is the immediate motive force of history and, in particular, that the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat is the great lever of modern social revolution; hence we cannot possibly co-operate with men who seek to eliminate that class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself.[3] Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes. If the new party organ is to adopt a policy that corresponds to the opinions of these gentlemen, if it is bourgeois and not proletarian, then all we could do — much though we might regret it — would be publicly to declare ourselves opposed to it and abandon the solidarity with which we have hitherto represented the German party abroad. But we hope it won't come to that.
It is intended that this letter should be communicated to all five members of the committee in Germany, and also to Bracke....
Nor have we any objection to its being communicated to the people in Zurich.
278. Marx to Nikolai Danielson. 19 September
277. Marx to Carl Hirsch. 18 September[534]
Dear Hirsch,
Arrived in London![500]
Greetings,
Yours
K. M.
278
MARX TO NIKOLAI DANIELSON
IN ST PETERSBURG
London, 19 September 1879 41 Maitland Park Road, Haverstock Hill, N. W.
My dear Sir,
I have just returned to London after almost two months rustication in the isle of Jersey[494] and at other sea-side places.[500] I was forced to do so and suspend all work during that time on medical advice because of nervous derangement. For this reason I was also unable to do justice to the mental food you were so kind as to forward me, but now I feel much reinvigorated and shall set at work with a will.
The book of Kowalewsky I got from himself.[535] He is one of my 'scientific' friends who every year comes to London in order to explore the treasures of the British Museum.
279. Marx to Friedrich Adolp h Sorge. 19 September
You will receive a longer letter so soon as I have disposed of some urgent work accumulated during my absence. In the meantime, with my best wishes
Yours sincerely
A. Williams[3]
279
MARX TO FRIEDRICH ADOLPH SORGE[41]
IN HOBOKEN
London, 19 September 1879 41 Maitland Park Road, Haverstock Hill, N. W.
Dear Friend,
It was not till the day before yesterday that I got back to London after a seven-week stay, first in Jersey and after that in Ramsgate. But I had at least made provision that business matters and commissions contained in your letters be immediately attended to by Engels. However, I have not yet had from old Beckerb the form for the power of attorney which you want me to sign, and which Engels asked him to send me.c As soon as the thing arrives I'll fill it in.[348] My LONG RUSTICATION was due to my nervous condition—(complicated by the fact that, because of Bismarck, Karlsbad has been inaccessible to me for the past two years)—which has latterly made all brain work virtually 'unfeasible'. But I'm much better now.
The new edition of Weitlingd hasn't reached me. The only American journal I am sent is the by no means very substantial Paterson Labor Standard. The things you sent last, Labor Bureau Statistics of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Massachusetts, received with thanks (likewise Steward's speech). I am delighted that the CHIEF of the Massachusetts Bureau,[3] as he tells me in a letter, should from now on be sending me the PUBLICATIONS direct (also the census) immediately they come out.b
As for Most and Co., our attitude towards them is a 'passive' one, i.e. we maintain no sort of relations with them, although I do see Most himself from time to time at my own house. To say that Engels and I had made any kind of 'statement' condemning Most or the Freiheit is a lie on Mr Lübeck's part. According to a letter Engels received from little Jew Bernstein in Zurich, Most had written to Switzerland and Germany claiming he had our support. To this Engels replied that if Bernstein could adduce any proof of this, he would make a public statement refuting these untruths.0
But Bernstein (nephew of the Berlin rabbi Rebenstein, of the Berlin Volks-Zeitung) was IN FACT unable to adduce an atom of proof. Instead he confided the bogus secret to that jackass Lübeck who, with the usual discretion of such PENNY-A-LINERS, sold it forthwith to the United States.
The issues upon which we differ from Most in no way tally with those of the gentlemen in Zurich, the trio 'Dr Höchberg-Bernstein (his secretary)-and C. A. Schramm'. Our complaint against Most is not that his Freiheit is too revolutionary; our complaint is that it has no revolutionary content, but merely indulges in revolutionary jargon. Again, our complaint is not that he criticises the party leaders in Germany, but, in the first place, that he kicks up a row in public instead of telling these men what he thinks in writing, as we do, i.e. by letter; in the second, however, that he merely used this as a pretext to make himself look important and to disseminate the silly secret conspiracy-mongering of Messrs Weber juNioRc and Kaufmann. Long before his arrival these laddies had felt it was their vocation to take the 'general working men's movement' under their august wing and, in their numerous attempts to realise this 'gracious' venture, had gone plotting and scheming all over the place. The good John Most, a man of the most childish vanity, actually believes that, because the self-same Most is no longer domiciled in Germany but in London, the whole world has been turned upside down. The man's not without talent, but he kills what he has by writing so profusely. Moreover, he has no esprit de suite.[3] With every change of wind he turns now this way, now that, like a weathercock.
However, things might well come to such a pass that Engels and I would feel compelled to issue a 'public statement' against the Leipzigers and their allies in Zurich.
This is how matters stand. Bebel wrote telling us that they intended to found a party organ in Zurich b and asked that we lend our names to it as contributors. Hirsch was named as putative editor. Whereupon we accepted and I wrote to Hirsch d (then in Paris, from which he has since been expelled for the second time[504]), telling him to accept the editorship since he alone could give us the guarantee that the kind of graduate, undergraduate, etc., rabble and armchair socialist riff-raff who had filled the columns of the Zukunft, etc., and were already invading those of the Vorwärts, were fended off and the party line rigorously adhered to. But now it transpired that Hirsch had unearthed a hornets' nest in Zurich. The five men, Dr Höchberg (who used his money to buy his way into the party, a cousin of Sonnemann's, the sentimental drooler), little Jew Bernstein, his secretary, C. A. Schramm, philistine, if a well-meaning one, and Leipzig's emissary, Viereck (also a philistine lout, natural son of the German Emperor') and a Berlin businessman, Singer (petty bourgeois, paunch, called on me a few months ago); these five men constituted themselves — by supreme authority of the Leipzigers— a constituent committee and appointed an administrative committee in Zurich, also responsible for supervising the editorial side and consisting of the trio «*, (Höchberg-Bernstein-C. A. Schramm) which was to decide in the first instance, but must defer to a court of the last instance composed of Bebel, Liebknecht and a few other German leaders. Well, what Hirsch wanted to know first was whom the money was coming from; Liebknecht wrote, saying from the 'party+Dr Höchberg'; Hirsch deducted the rhetorical flourish and reduced this quite correctly to 'Höchberg'. Secondly, Hirsch did not wish to subordinate himself to the trifolium Höchberg-Bernstein-C. A. Schramm, in which he was the more justified for having received from Bernstein, in reply to a letter asking for information, a bureaucratic dressing down,[493]
condemning his Laterne for— mirabile dictuA—being ultrarevolution-ar), etc. After protracted correspondence, in which Liebknecht played a by no means brilliant role, Hirsch withdrew; Engels wrote to Bebel saying that we, too, would withdraw," just as, from the very start, we had refused to contribute to the Zukunft (Höchberg)[313] and the Neue Gesellschaft (Wiede).[296] These laddies, nonentities in theory and nincompoops in practice, are seeking to draw the teeth of socialism (which they have rehashed in accordance with academic formulae) and of the Social-Democratic Party in particular, to enlighten the workers or, as they put it, to provide them, out of their confused and superficial knowledge, with educative elements' and, above all, to make the party 'respectable' in the eyes of the philistines. They are poor counter-revolutionary windbags. WELL. The weekly organ is now appearing (or is to appear) in Zurich, under their supervision and the general supervision of the Leipzigers. (Editor, Vollmar.)
In the meantime Höchbergb came over here to rope us in. He found only Engels who, in a critical discussion of the Jahrbuch Höchberg had brought out (under the pseudonym Dr L. Richter), showed him how deep was the gulf between him and us. (Have a look at the lamentable concoction: the article signed with 3 * is the triumvirate Höchberg-Bernstein-C. A. Schramm.[013]) (But the good John Most also figures therein, in the sycophantic article about that quill-pusher Schaffte.0) Never has anything more discreditable to the party appeared in print. What a lot of good Bismarck did, not to himself but us, by imposing silence on Germany and thus giving these laddies a chance of making themselves plainly heard. Höchberg came down to earth with a bang after Engels had given him a piece of his mind; he's a partisan of 'peaceable' development and, in point of fact, expects proletarian emancipation to be achieved solely by 'educated bourgeois', i.e. people like himself. After all, hadn't he been told by Liebknecht that au fondd we were all of us agreed, that everyone in Germany — i.e. all the leaders — shared his view, etc.?
In fact Liebknecht, having made the tremendous blunder of treating with the Lassalleans, flung wide the door to all these demi-men and thus, malgré lui,[1]' paved the way for demoralisation within the party which could be eliminated only by the Anti-Socialist Law.[462]
Now should the 'weekly'—the party organ — in fact go ahead along the lines laid down in Höchberg's Jahrbuch, we shall be compelled to make a public protest against this debauching of party and theory! Engels has written a circular (letter) to Bebel, etc.[3] (just for private circulation among the German leaders, of course), in which our point of view is plainly set forth. So the gentlemen are forewarned and, moreover, are well enough acquainted with us to know that this means bend or break! If they wish to compromise themselves, tant pish\ In no circumstances shall we allow them to compromise us. To what depths they have already been brought by parliamentarianism will be evident to you from the fact that they impute it a dire crime in Hirsch to have — what?—handled that scoundrel Kayser somewhat roughly in the Laterne, on account of his disgraceful speech regarding Bismarck's customs legislation Dl9\ But, or so they now maintain, the party, i.e. the handful of the party's parliamentary representatives, had authorised Kayser to speak as he did. More shame to that handful! But even this is a pitiful evasion. In fact they had been silly enough to allow Kayser to speak for himself and in the name of his constituents; he, however, spoke in the party's name. Be that as it may; they are already so far infected with parliamentary cretinism as to believe themselves above criticism and to denounce criticism as a crime de lèse majesté!
As regards the Communist Manifesto, nothing has so far been done because now Engels, now I, had not enough time.[148] But it must at long last be proceeded with.
I hope that your next letter will bring reassuring news as to the health and prosperity of you and yours. MEANWHILE — my wife sends her most cordial regards — I remain,
Yours very truly,
Karl Marx
John Most wrote and told me about Lübeck's tittle-tattle in the Chicago paper.[512] I didn't reply; but now that I'm in London, I shall ask him to come and see me in person, and shall tell him what I think by word of mouth.
Hirsch has been here since his expulsion from Paris. I haven't seen him yet since he could not, of course, have found me at home while I was away.
I am using a 'registered' envelope only because I could find no other and yet wanted to avoid any further delay.
281. Engels to Marx. After 8 October
280. Engels to Johann Philipp Becker. 24 September
Your postcarda received. I have taken out a money order for £1 12s. which should come to 40.20 francs, so that you won't be in a hole if the cost of the power of attorney b amounts to a bit more. Marx is back,[500] apparently in the very best of health, so no doubt work on the 2nd volume of Capital[62] can now go briskly ahead.
As regards the progress of negotiations with our people in the land of the philistines, I shall let you have further news in due course.[490]
I n h a s t e-Your old friend,
F. E.
281
ENGELS TO MARXMB
IN LONDON
[London, after 8 October 1879]
Didn't you send the noble Barry the notes I put into Fraserc? I put them there under Pumps' own eyes and in such a way that they were visible from outside. If not, send them off to him.
Your
F. E. First published in MEGA, Abt. Ill, Printed according to the original Bd. 4, Berlin, 1931 r r. Published in English for the first
282. Marx to Bertha Augusti. 25 October
282
MARX TO BERTHA AUGUSTI , 6
IN KOBLENZ
[London,] 25 October 1879
Dear Mrs Bertha,
I have a (tiresome) visitor sitting next to me, but do not wish to miss the opportunity of telling you in all haste how grateful I am to you for the pleasure afforded me by reading your novel in the
Kölnische." Great talent is discernible by all, but the achievement is particularly surprising to one who is aware of the confined and cloistered conditions in which you work. Moreover I would take the liberty of adding that I am a great heretic as far as German novels are concerned, think nothing of them and have been greatly spoiled by the best French, English and Russian novelists. Hence it was also with my habitual mistrust that I embarked on the reading of your Verhängnisvolles Jahr.
Wishing you all prosperity,
Most cordially yours,
Karl Marx
283. Engels to August Bebel. 14 November[485][537]
Dear Bebel,
Many thanks for your communications, as also those of Fritzsche and Liebknecht,[338] which have at last enabled us to get a clear idea of the facts.
That things have not, from the start, been exactly straightfor-ward, however, is evident from earlier letters from Leipzig and the muddles and misunderstandings with Hirsch generally.[3] The latter could not have happened if, from the start, the Leipzigers had put paid to Zurich's pretensions to censorship. Had they done so and informed Hirsch of the fact, everything would have been all right. But since they didn't, I can only conclude, after again comparing commissions with omissions, present communications with previous letters from all concerned, that Höchberg wasn't altogether wrong when he told me that Zurich had imposed censorship solely on Hirsch's account, it being unnecessary in the case of Vollmar.
As regards the financing,[11] I'm not particularly surprised that you should take matters so lightly. For this is the first time you've had a go at the thing. But Hirsch had already been through this particular mill with the Laterne and, as for us, who have so often witnessed such things and even experienced them in person, we can only endorse his request that careful consideration be given to this point. Freiheit, despite all subsidies, is left at the end of its third quarter with a deficit of £100=2,000 marks. I have never known a German paper, banned at home, that could have survived without substantial subsidies. Do not allow yourselves to be dazzled by initial successes. The real difficulties involved in smuggling become manifest only with time, and multiply constantly.[539]
What you say about the attitude of the deputies and of the party leaders generally to the protective tariffs question corroborates every word of my letter/ It was bad enough, in all conscience, that a party which prides itself on being so superior to the bourgeois in the sphere of economics should, when first put to the test in that sphere, prove just as divided, just as ignorant, as the National Liberals[040] who could at least plead a genuine clash of bourgeois interests in extenuation of their inglorious collapse. But it was even worse that that split should have been seen to happen, that your attitude should have been wavering and uncertain. Once you knew that unity was unattainable, there was only one thing to do — declare the question to be a purely bourgeois question, which indeed it is, and abstain from voting.[3] But the worst thing of all was permitting Kayser to make his lamentable speeches and to vote for the Bill at its first reading. It was not until after that division that
Hirsch attacked him,[019] and if Kayser later, at the third reading, voted against the Bill, he only made matters worse, not better.
The resolution in congress is no excuse.[541] If the party proposes to regard as binding all the earlier resolutions made by congress in the easy-going days of peace, it will be placing itself in fetters. The constitutional basis upon which a living party functions must not only be self-created, it must also and at all times be susceptible to change. Inasmuch as the Anti-Socialist Law[462] makes congresses and hence the amendment of earlier congressional resolutions impossible, it also abolishes the binding force of those resolutions. A party that is deprived of the opportunity of passing binding resolutions can only look for its laws to its living and ever changing needs. But if it seeks to subordinate those needs to earlier resolutions that are now dead as a doornail, it will be digging its own grave.
So much for the formal aspect. However, it is the content of that resolution that really invalidates it. In the first place it is incompatible with the programme in that it admits of voting indirect taxation. Secondly it is incompatible with essential party tactics inasmuch as it permits taxation to be voted for the present-day state. Thirdly, however, it implies, translated into plain language:
The congress admits to not being well enough informed about the question of protective tariffs to pass a definite resolution, for or against. Hence it declares itself incompetent in this matter, inasmuch as it restricts itself, for the benefit of the dear public, to the enunciation of a few commonplaces, some of them meaning-less, some incompatible either with each other or with the party programme, and then proceeds gladly to wash its hands of the whole affair.
And is this declaration of incompetence whereby what was, in peace-time, a purely academic question was swept under the carpet,—is this declaration,b now that, in time of war, the question has become a burning one, to be considered as binding upon an entire party until legally invalidated by a new resolution which present circumstances preclude?
This much is certain: whatever the impression made on the deputies by Hirsch's attacks upon Kayser, those attacks reflect the impression made by Kayser's irresponsible action upon Social-Democrats abroad, whether German or non-German. And it is high time it was realised that the reputation of the party has to be kept up, not only within its own confines, but also in the eyes of Europe and America.
And this brings me to the report.[542] However good it may be at the start and however skilful — in the circumstances — the treatment of the protective tariffs debate, this does not atone for the concessions made to the German philistines in the third part. Why the altogether superfluous passage about 'civil war', why such deference to 'public opinion' which, in Germany, will always be that of the beer-swilling philistine; why, at this point, the total obliteration of the movement's class character? Why give the anarchists that pleasure? And, what is more, all these concessions are utterly useless. The German philistine is cowardice incarnate; he has no respect for anyone who does not inspire fear in him.(1)
But anyone who tries to curry favour with him he regards as one of his own kind and accords him no more respect than he accords to his own kind, which is to say none at all. And now that the storm of beer-swilling philistine indignation known as public opinion has, as is generally admitted, died down and the burden of taxation has in any case reduced these people to pulp, why go on with this billing and cooing? If only you knew what it sounded like abroad! It's a good thing for a party organ to be managed by men immediately involved in the party and the struggle. But were you to spend only six months abroad, you would feel quite differently about this quite uncalled-for self-abasement of the party deputies before the philistines. The storm that broke over the French socialists after the Commune was, after all, a very different kind of thing from the uproar about Nobiling[406] in Germany. And how much prouder and more self-confident was the bearing of the French! Where, in their case, may such weaknesses, such kow-towing to opponents, be discerned? They remained silent when they could not speak freely, they let the philistines shout till they could shout no more, they knew their time would surely come, and now it is here.
I can well believe what you say about Höchberg. Indeed, I have absolutely no objection to him as a private individual. I also believe that it was only the anti-socialist campaign that made him realise what, in his heart of hearts, he wanted. That what he wanted was bourgeois and not proletarian was something I tried — probably in vain — to make him see.[3] But once he had formulated a programme, I must have credited him with more than German philistine weakness had I assumed that he would not try to gain recognition for it. Höchberg before and Höchberg after that article*[13] are, indeed, two different persons.b
But now, in No. 5 of the Sozialdemokrat, I find a contribution from the Lower Elbec in which Auer uses my letter as a pretext to accuse me — without mentioning my name but leaving small room for doubt — of 'sowing the seeds of suspicion in regard to the trustiest comrades', i.e. of calumniating them (for otherwise I should be perfectly justified in so doing).e Not content with that, he falsely attributes to me things as stupid as they are infamous, and which were not contained in my letter at all. Auer, or so it would seem, supposes that / want something or other of the party. But as you know, it is not / who want anything of the party; on the contrary, it is the party that wants something of me. As you and Liebknecht know, all I have ever asked of the party is that it should leave me in peace so that I can complete my theoretical works.[169] You know that, for the past sixteen years, I have nevertheless been approached over and over again with the request that I write for party organs, and that I have actually done so, that I have written whole series of articles, entire pamphlets at Liebknecht's express behest—such as The Housing Question and Anti-Diihring. I won't go into details about the kindnesses the party has bestowed on me in return — e.g. the agreeable transactions in congress on the subject of Diihring.[286] Again, you know that Marx and I have voluntarily conducted the defence of the party against its opponents abroad throughout the party's existence, and that we have never asked anything of the party in return, save that it should not be untrue to itself.
But if the party asks of me that I should contribute to its new organ,[3] it is only to be expected that it should at least ensure that, while negotiations are still in progress, I should not be calum-niated as a calumniator in the self-same organ and, what is more, by one b of its nominal co-proprietors. There is, so far as I am aware, no literary or other code of honour to which this would conform, and I believe that even a reptile[408] would not stand for such treatment. Hence I must ask you:
1. What satisfaction can you proffer me for this unprovoked and rotten insult?
2. What guarantees can you offer that nothing of the kind will ever happen again?
For the rest, all I want to say about Auer's insinuations is that we over here underestimate neither the difficulties the party has to contend with in Germany, nor the significance of the victories won in the face of them and the hitherto exemplary conduct of the party masses. It goes without saying that every victory gained in Germany gladdens our hearts as much as any gained elsewhere— more so, indeed, seeing that from the very start the German party developed in accordance with our theoretical propositions. But for that very reason we cannot but be particularly concerned that the practical conduct of the German party, and notably the public utterances of the party leadership, should continue to accord with the general theory. Undoubtedly our criticism will be displeasing to some; yet no amount of uncritical praise could, after all, be of such value to the partyc as the presence abroad of a couple of men who, uninfluenced by confusing local conditions and the minutiae of the d struggle, compare from time to time what has been said and what has been done with the theoretical tenets valid for any modern proletarian movement, and in whom that party may see reflected the impression its actions have made outside Germany.
Most cordially yours,
F. Engels
284. Marx to Friedrich Adolph Sorge. 14 November
284
MARX TO FRIEDRICH ADOLPH SORGE
IN HOBOKEN
London, 14 November 1879 41 Maitland Park Road, N. W. Dear Sorge,
I am at last able to send you all the powers of attorney.[3] I didn't get the others until the end of the week before last; they arrived when I was confined to the house by a most INFAMOUS cold and then, after that, my worthy SOLICITOR contrived to spin out the affair for another week, and only today did I finally receive my power of attorney. The account both for these and the first one will be sent to you later. The other 3 (or rather 4) powers of attorney will go off to you at the same time as this letter — but under separate* cover.
You will doubtless have got my letterb in which I told you about the latest goings-on in the bosom of the party. Since then Höchberg and his associates0 in Zurich have been removed, at least nominally, from the editorial committee which now sits in Leipzig, while Vollmar functions as editor in Zurich. His paper, Der Sozialdemokrat, isn't worth much. But at any rate all our associates worth mentioning, Liebknecht, Bebel, Bracke, etc., have disowned Dr Höchberg's, alias Richter's, Jahrbuch,[5]*[4] though as yet only — in private.
You will have seen in the papers that the anti-communist gang, composed of very heterogeneous elements, was finally defeated at the Marseilles Congress.
My wife is still dangerously ill and I myself am not yet completely fit.
With kindest regards from my family.
Your
Karl Marx
285. Engels to August Bebel. 24 November
285
ENGELS TO AUGUST BEBEL
IN LEIPZIG
London, 24 November 1879
Dear Bebel,
I had good reasons for assuming that Auer was alluding to myself.b The date proves nothing. He expressly excludes Most. So go and ask him yourself whom he meant; then we shall see what he says. I'm positive that the misunderstanding was not on my side.[546]
Höchberg did, to be sure, make the statement in question.[13]
I know that you were mostly away while the negotiations with Hirsch were going on and it never occurred to me to hold you personally responsible for what happened.
As regards the question of tariffs, your letter wholly corroborates what I have said.c If feelings were divided, as was indeed the case, and if it was thought desirable to take those divided feelings into consideration, what was called for was, of course, abstention, no less. Otherwise it would have meant taking one side only into consideration. But why the protectionist section was more deserving of consideration than the free trade one is difficult to see. You say you cannot adopt a purely negative attitude in Parliament. But since everyone ultimately voted against the Bill, their attitude was, after all, purely negative. All I'm saying is, they ought to have known from the start how they intended to conduct themselves; they ought to have acted in conformity with the final vote.
Questions which enable Social-Democratic deputies to abandon a purely negative attitude are very narrowly circumscribed. All are questions which immediately involve the relation of workers to capitalists: factory legislation, the normal working-day, employer's liability, payment in goods, etc. Perhaps also improvements in the purely bourgeois sense such as constitute a positive step forward: standardisation of coins and weights, freedom of movement, extension of personal freedom, etc. You're unlikely to be troubled with these for the time being. In the case of all other economic questions, such as protective tariffs, nationalisation of the railways, assurance companies, etc., Social-Democratic deputies must always uphold the vital principle of consenting to nothing that increases the power of the government vis-à-vis the people. And this is made all the easier in that feelings within the party itself will, of course, invariably be divided in such cases and hence abstention, a negative attitude, is automatically called for.
What you say about Kayser makes the matter even worse. If he speaks in favour of protective tariffs in general, why does he vote against them[502]? If he intends voting against them why does he speak in favour of them? If, however, he has studied the subject with great diligence, how can he vote for tariffs on iron? Had his studies been worth a penny, he couldn't fail to have discovered that there are two ironworks in Germany, the Dortmunder Union and the Königs- und Laurahütte, either of which is capable of meeting the entire domestic demand; besides these there are many smaller ones; hence that a protective tariff is utter nonsense in this case; that the only remedy in this case is the capture of the foreign market, hence unadulterated free trade or bankruptcy; also that the iron-masters themselves can only want a protective tariff if they have formed a ring, a conspiracy which imposes monopoly prices on the domestic market, so that they are better able to sell off their surplus products abroad at cut prices, which they are in fact already doing at this moment. It was in the interests of this ring, this conspiracy of monopolists that Kayser was speaking and, insofar as he voted in favour of tariffs on iron, was also voting, and Hansemann of the Dortmunder Union and Bleichröder of the Königs- und Laurahütte will be laughing in their sleeves at the stupid Social-Democrat who has, for good measure, studied the subject with diligencel
You must at all costs get hold of Rudolph Meyer's Politische Gründer in Deutschland. Without a knowledge of the material assembled here on the swindles, the crash and the political corruption of recent years, it is impossible to form an opinion on present conditions in Germany. How is it that this store of riches was not exploited at the time for the benefit of our press[547]? The book is banned, of course.
The passages in the report[542] I particularly have in mind are(1)
1. those in which so much emphasis is laid on winning over public opinion — to have this factor against you was to be hamstrung; it was a matter of life and death that 'this hatred be turned into sympathy', etc.— sympathy! from people who just before, during the Terror,[406] had shown themselves to be dirty blackguards. There was no need to go to such lengths, especially as the Terror had long since ended; — 2. those to the effect that the party, which condemns war in any shape or form (hence also the one which it is forced to wage, which it wages notwithstanding) and whose goal is the universal fraternisation of all men (in terms of a slogan the goal of every party, in terms of immediate reality that of none, for not even we wish to fraternise with the bourgeois so long as they wish to remain bourgeois), cannot envisage civil war (hence not even in a case where civil war is the only means to the end). This proposition may also be construed as follows: that a party which condemns bloodshed in any shape or form cannot envisage either blood-letting or the amputation of gangrenous limbs, or scientific vivisection. Why all these empty phrases? I'm not asking that all your language should be 'vigorous', I am not reproaching the Report for saying too little — on the contrary, there is much that would have been better left unsaid. The next part is much better and so Hans Most(2) has fortunately overlooked the few passages out of which he could have made capital.
But it was a blunder to insert a solemn announcement in the Sozialdemokrat to the effect that Liebknecht had taken the Saxon oath of allegiance. Hans won't let that one pass by,'[48] and his anarchist friends will be sure to embroider on it. Marx and I don't consider the matter itself to be as dangerous as, e.g., Hirsch took it to be in the heat of the moment. You people must know whether 'Paris vaut bien une messe',b as Henri IV said when he became a Catholic, thus sparing France a thirty years' war,[549] and whether the advantages are of a kind to justify such inconsistency and the taking of an oath which, moreover, is the only one which cannot entail a prosecution for perjury. But once it had been taken, nothing ought to have been said about it until others had kicked up a fuss; that would have been time enough to go on to the defensive. But for the Sozialdemokrat, Hans wouldn't have heard a word about it.
I was delighted at the lambasting you gave the notorious drunkard and wastrel.[550] We shall see that this is spread about in Paris, though we are stumped for the French words that would convey the foregoing pithy expressions.
We are, by the way, fully aware that it is all very well, as they say, for us here to talk, and that your position is much more difficult than ours.
That the petty bourgeois and peasants should be joining us is, I grant you, a sign of the movement's rapid progress, but it also
286. Marx to Achille Loria. 3 December
constitutes a danger to the movement, once one forgets not only that these people have got to come, but also that they are coming simply because they have got to. Their joining us proves that the proletariat really has become the leading class. But since the ideas and ambitions they bring with them are those of the petty bourgeois and the peasant, it must not be forgotten that the proletariat would forfeit its leading historical role were it to make concessions to those ideas and ambitions.
Most cordially yours,
F. Engels
Herewith another loose postscript/
286
MARX TO ACHILLE LORIA
IN MANTUA
London, 3 December 1879 41 Maitland Park Road, N. W. Dear Sir,
For reasons of health I was compelled to absent myself from London for a time. On my return today I found awaiting me your letter of 23 November and your work.b I hasten to acknowledge receipt and at the same time express my thanks to you.
Yours very truly,
Karl Marx
288. Marx to Charles Walstone ( Waldstein). 13 December
287. Marx to an Unknown Correspondent. 11 December[551]
Will you come to dinner next Sunday" at 2 o'clock?
Yours truly
Karl Marx
288
MARX TO CHARLES WALSTONE (WALDSTEIN)[552]
IN LONDON
[London,] 13 December 1879 Liebes b Waldhörnlein,c
You will — I hope — be so good as to come and dine with us tomorrow (Sunday) at 2 o'clock. There will be a young Russian d who is worth studying, being a 'type'. Don't be frightened! He carries neither daggers nor revolvers nor explosive 'chemicals' about himself. Besides, your name does not yet figure on the 'black' list.
And now vale favequee
Karl Marx
Works, Second Russian Edition, Vol. 50, Moscow, 1981
289. Engels to Thomas Allsop. 14 December
289
ENGELS TO THOMAS ALLSOP[553]
IN LIMINGTON
London, 14 December 1879 122 Regent's Park Road, N. W. My dear Friend,
I am very sorry indeed to learn that you have been ill and are not yet completely restored to health. I hope your legs will soon be all right again so as to allow you to stir about — I know how you will miss your usual exercise.
We are all pretty well here so far, our patients and half-patients seem to come round gradually.
The man in The P.M.G.* does indeed to some extent divine that there are breakers ahead, but as a true Philistine, he seems unable to distinguish appearances from reality. No doubt the crash in Russia is impending and may break out any time. And no doubt, the collapse of Russian despotism must re-act with immense force upon Germany and Austria. But whether an immediate outbreak there be probable or whether it even have chances of success, is more than I pretend to know. The man is quite right, too, in saying that the system of drilling the whole male population, as is now the rule all over the continent, will end in revolutionising these monster armies from within. But this is a process requiring some little time, and as far as Germany goes, it is only lately showing itself. This constant penetration of fresh revolutionary elements into the army, noticed with every new yearly batch of recruits, has been the principal motive for introducing the [Anti-] Socialist law.[462] And how little this Socialist Law, with all its terrorism, has effected, has again been shown last Thursday. At the last election in 1878, at Magdeburg, our candidateb only gotVä of the votes given; now there was a fresh election there, and he c
very near got the full half of the votes, and stands a chance of passing at the second ballot.[054] The joke of the thing is, that this candidate of ours is a natural son of old William, the emperor, by an actress, Miss Viereck, whilom the old fellow's mistress.
Anyhow, the outbreak in Russia must hasten the movement in Central and Western Europe. The governments of Vienna and Berlin will lose heart when they have no longer that unfailing
290. Engels to August Bebel. 16 December
mainstay of all reaction — the absolute Russian government. And the moral effect of a revolutionary successful movement in Russia upon the masses in Central Europe must be immense.
The worst would be, to us, if Russia, to avoid revolution, launched into foreign war. But so long as they have not the French Alliance, they scarcely venture.
Anyhow, by next spring this Russian crisis, which we think here is the most important one since 1848, must come to a head either one way or another, and I hope you will recover your full strength so as to enjoy the stirring times which are, it appears, still in store for you. . Very faithfully yours
F. Engels
290
ENGELS TO AUGUST BEBEL[127]
IN LEIPZIG
London, 16 December 1879 Dear Bebel,
I find it incomprehensible that Auer should now say he had meant Most amongst others, since in the article he all but specifically excepted him.[346] But let it rest at that.
In No. 10 of the Sozialdemokrat there are 'Preßgeschichtliche Rückblicke' which unmistakably stem from one or other of the three asterisks/ Here we read that it can only be an honour for Social-Democrats to be compared with belletrists such as Gutzkow and Laube, i.e. with men who, long before '48, had already laid to rest such political character as they still had left, if indeed they ever had any. Again:
'The events of 1848 were bound to come, either accompanied by all the blessings of peace, if governments had responded to the demands of the time, or, alas — since they did not do so — the only recourse that remained was violent revolution.' In a paper in which it is possible actually to deplore the revolution of 1848 which, for the first time, opened wide the door to Social-Democracy, in such a paper there is no room for us. From this article and from Höchberg's letter, it is plainly evident that the three asterisks claim the right to advocate in the Sozialdemokrat—and this on an equal footing with proletarian views — their own petty-bourgeois socialist opinions first clearly enunciated in their Jahrbuch.[513] And, now that things have gone so badly off the rails, I fail to see how you people in Leipzig propose to prevent this without an actual breach. Now as before, you regard these men as party members. We cannot do so. The dividing line created between us and them by the Jahrbuch article is distinct and absolute. We cannot even negotiate with these people so long as they claim to belong to the same party as ourselves. The points that have arisen in this case are ones which no longer admit of being discussed in any proletarian party. To subject them to discussion within the party would mean jeopardis-ing the whole of proletarian socialism.
In these circumstances it might, in fact, be better if we did not contribute. We would be constantly protesting and would, after a few weeks, have to give public notice of our resignation, which would do nothing to promote the cause.
We regret very much being unable, at this time of repression, to give you our unqualified support. So long as the party in Germany remained true to its proletarian character, we were prepared to set aside all other considerations. But now that the petty-bourgeois elements you have admitted have come out in their true colours,[3]
it's a different matter. The moment they are permitted to insinuate their petty-bourgeois ideas piecemeal into the organ of the German party, that organ, by the same token, is closed to us,b
no more nor less.
The matter of the oath[548] is of very little concern to us. It might have been possible, as you yourself wished, to find some other procedure that would to some extent have eliminated the disagreeable impression, but it's of no great moment.[556] Discretion shall be observed, as you request.
Malon's journal" might have a salutory effect, for 1. Malon is not the kind of man to do much damage and 2. his collaborators among the French will see to it that the thing is kept on its proper course. If Höchberg imagines it will provide an arena for his petty bourgeoiserie, he'll find that he's thrown his money down the drain.
We were very pleased about the Magdeburg election.[554] The staunchness of the working-class masses in Germany is admirable. The letters from working men in the Sozialdemokrat are the only good things in it.
I return herewith Höchberg's letter. The man's completely hopeless. If we refused to do anything in company with the
Zukunft people, this was, it seems, out of personal vanity. But a third of these people's names were, and still are, completely unknown to us, and approximately another third are notorious petty-bourgeois socialists. And a thing like that called itself a 'scientific' journal! And Höchberg still believes it had an 'enlight-ening' effect. Testifies to the much vaunted lucidity of his own intellect which, right up to this very day, and despite my every endeavour, has been unable to grasp the difference between petty-bourgeois and proletarian socialism. All differences of opinion are 'misunderstandings'. Exactly as in the case of the democratic wailers[557] of '48. Or else 'over-hasty' deductions. Of course, since any deduction is over-hasty which deduces a specific meaning from the chatter of these gentry. For they aren't just trying to say such and such, but also, as likely as not, the opposite.
Apart from this, world history proceeds on its course untrou-bled by these philistine advocates of prudence and moderation. In Russia things will surely come to a head within a few months. Either absolutism will be overthrown and then, immediately after the overthrow of that great storehouse of reaction, a new wind will blow across Europe. Or else there will be a European war, and the present German party, too, will be submerged in the inevitable struggle of each individual people for its national existence. A war such as that would, for us, be the greatest of misfortunes; it might set the movement back by twenty years. But the new party that must surely emerge from it at last would, in all European
291. Engels to Johann Philipp Becker. 19 December
countries, be freed of a host of hesitations and pettinesses such as presently hamper the movement everywhere.
Most cordially yours,
F. E.
291
ENGELS TO JOHANN PHILIPP BECKER
IN GENEVA
London, 19 December 1879
Dear Old Man,
I was supposed to be getting some money yesterday and it had long been understood that you would thereupon at once be sent a remittance. But it came too late for me to draw a money order that same day, and all through the afternoon I kept thinking: A letter's bound to arrive from Philipp this evening! And sure enough, it did arrive. So you've deprived me of the pleasure of giving you an unexpected Christmas treat. Well then, I have drawn a money order for five pounds sterling, against which, according to the rate here, 126 frs should be paid to you over there — as will, no doubt, be done without delay.
Over here we are all so-so; I can't complain, Marx is fitter than last year, although he still isn't really up to the mark. Mrs Marx has long been subject to bouts of indigestion and is seldom entirely well. The second volumea is making slow progress, nor is it likely to progress any faster until a summer better than the last one enables Marx to recover properly for once.[62]
Yesterday I wrote and told Bebelb that we couldn't contribute to the Sozialdemokrat. From Höchberg's subsequent letters it emerges that he intends, as a matter of course, to continue advocating in the Sozialdemokrat the views expressed in the Jahrbuch?13, And as long as the Leipzigers remain on their present footing with him and his philistine colleagues, I cannot see how they can refuse to allow this. But it also means that we are excluded. Having combatted this same petty-bourgeois socialism ever since the Manifesto* (indeed, since Marx's anti-Proudhon pieceb), we cannot go hand in hand with it at a moment when it is using the Anti-Socialist Law[462] as a pretext for raising its banner again. And it is better so. We would involve ourselves in an endless debate with these gentry, the Sozialdemokrat would become a battle-ground, and in the end we should after all be forced publicly to announce our resignation. Not that all this would be of use to anyone save the Prussians and the bourgeois, and so we would rather avoid it. But this should not be regarded as a model by other people — those who, unlike us, have not themselves been forced by these particular negotiations to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by Höchberg and Co. I see no reason at all why you, for example, should not contribute to the paper.[538] The articles from German working men are the only things in it that give one any pleasure, and things of yours could only enhance the paper; and since it does exist, a paper that's as good as it's possible to make it is, after all, preferable to one that is merely bad. I say this on the assumption that these people pay you properly, for it would be asking altogether too much of a man in your position that he should, into the bargain, work for nothing. In fact, we're not particularly incensed against the Leipzigers over this business. We saw it coming for years. For Liebknecht cannot resist mediating and making friends left and right, nor is he exactly fussy about what elements have been imported so long as the party gives the appearance of being really strong and having plenty of members and, if possible, funds. And so he'll go on until one day he burns his fingers. When that happens the better men will no doubt revert to the right course.
The Freiheit is all sound and fury, quite devoid of content or meaning, and Most, who in other respects is not without talent, has here shown himself incapable of producing a single idea since he uprooted himself from the bedrock of the party. If I've got to have undiluted abuse, then give me the late Karl Heinzen any day; he succeeded in being even more ham-handed.
The powers of attorney have all gone off to New York,' since when nothing more has been heard. There's no relying on
292. Engels to Amélie Engel. Around 1879- 1880
Liebknecht's expectations, of which he always has more than is good for him.
For years Lessner has had nothing much to do with the Society here[55]; he seldom turns up, and then doesn't do anything much except grumble and grouse about the course of things generally.
In Russia matters are going splendidly! They'll soon come to blows there. And when that happens, the bowels of the great men of the German Empire will instantly turn to water — a veritable flux! That will be the next turning point of world history.
You shouldn't allow the poor anarchists to irritate you so.[559]
They, too, are in a truly forlorn state. In the West they have nothing left to do save be anarchical amongst themselves and tear one another's hair out, and in Russia all their murderous deeds achieve — as they have just discovered to their dismay — is pulling the Constitutionals'[560] chestnuts out of the fire for them!
Regards from Marx and
Your
F. E.
292
ENGELS TO AMÉLIE ENGEL[561]
IN LONDON
[Draft]
[London, around 1879-1880]
Madame,
Many years of experience have impressed upon me the principle that under no circumstances should one give financial aid to strangers.
Moreover I cannot at this moment raise the sum you want. Were I able to do so, I should be under an obligation to use it, as I do every penny I can spare, for the relief of our German party comrades who are being persecuted by Bismarck.
Besides, since you have connections that will procure you audiences with princesses, you are unlikely to experience difficulty in extricating yourself from this momentary embarrassment.
Finally, I cannot refrain from mentioning that, while your visit came as a surprise to me, I have since then been equally certain of receiving a request of the kind contained in your letter.
Yours very truly
30-406
APPENDICES
1
Endnotes
[459] follows: Marx 'informing his correspondent that he sent off three copies of Das Kapital and received payment for them'. The letter was purchased by an agent of the Maggs Brothers auctioneers; its subsequent fate is unknown.—350
[460] Marx is replying to Hugo Heller's letter of 9 January 1879, which stated that in his work Graf Bismarck und seine Leute während des Krieges mit Frankreich (Bd. II, Leipzig, 1878, S. 159) 'court flatterer' Moritz Busch represented Marx as preserver of the late King's life (probably Frederick William IV). Hugo Heller added that 'Champagne was still the King's undoing'. In his next letter, that of 10 February 1879, Heller apologised to Marx for misinterpreting this passage in Busch's book; in actual fact, the reference was not to Marx but to Mr Wiehr. Later, Heller copied out the pertinent passage and sent it on to Marx.—350
[461] On 26 January 1879, Johann Philipp Becker wrote to Engels about the financial predicament his family was in now that he had lost his job as a correspondent following the introduction of the Anti-Socialist Law banning the entire socialist press.— 350
[463] The theological system of John Calvin, a Protestant reformer of the 16th century, emphasised the doctrine of predestination and salvation solely by God's grace.— 351
[464] During the strike and lockout of Geneva building workers in March-April 1868, the General Council of the International arranged for financial assistance to the strikers. Money was received from France, Germany, the United States, Britain, Austria and Belgium.— 351
[465] A reference to Guillaume's resignation from the Jura Federation (it fell apart in 1878) of the so-called anarchist International and his departure from Switzerland to Paris in May 1878.—351
[466] x h e fj r s t i s s u e 0{ the Freiheit appeared in London on 4 January 1879.— 351
[312] Beaumont, President Mac-Mahon's sister-in-law, and had consequently been
[468] consideration a bill on its deputies' disciplinary responsibility (the so-called muzzle bill). It was spearheaded against the Social-Democratic deputies and the democratic opposition in the Reichstag and came up for debate on 4-7 March 1879. The bill granted a specially appointed commission the right to punish a deputy if 'he failed to show restraint in his attacks on speakers from among the opposition', and even expel him from the Reichstag. On 7 March, the deputies turned down the bill by a majority vote as infringing their democratic rights.—351, 352 4 M On 5 February 1879, the western constituency of Breslau (Wroclaw) held by-election occasioned by the death of the deputy Heinrich Bürgers. The ballot, conducted against the background of the Anti-Socialist Law (see Note 462), demonstrated the strength and unity of the working class. The workers' deputy Julius Kràcker failed to win a majority, but did poll over 7,500 votes.— 352
[469] In the original 'von Fall zu Fall'—a phrase that came to designate unpredictable and indefinite policies. In connection with the Berlin Conference (1876) of Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary (see Note 430), the Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister Gyula Andrâssy stated that the three great powers had not reached a definite decision on the Eastern Question but had agreed to coordinate their positions 'von Fall zu Fall'. Applying the phrase to Bismarck's policies, Engels puns on the word 'Fall', 'failure', changing the meaning of the expression to 'one cropper after another'.— 352
[470] In February 1879, The Times printed a number of articles dealing with Bismarck's finance policies. Some of them, e.g., the leader of 13 February 1879 devoted to the opening of the German Reichstag, questioned the purposes of Bismarck's protectionist policy.— 352
[471] An extract from this letter was published in English for the first time in: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Correspondence. 1846-1895. A Selection with Commentary and Notes, Martin Lawrence Ltd., London, 1934. In a fuller form, it appeared in: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Letters on 'Capital', New-Park Publications Ltd., London, 1983.—353
[450] The address on the envelope is in Eleanor Marx's hand: 'N. Danielson, Esq.,
[72] This letter was published in English for the first time in: K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Lawrence, London, [1933].— 60, 94, 97
[474] A reference to the world economic crises of 1857 and 1866 which seriously affected the British economy.— 354
[453] The Civil War in America broke out in April 1861. The Southern slaveholders rose against the Union and formed the Confederacy of the Southern States. The war was caused mainly by the conflict between the two social systems: the capitalist system of wage labour established in the North and the slave system dominant in the South. The Civil War, which had the nature of a bourgeois-democratic revolution, passed two stages in its development: the period of a constitutional war for the maintenance of the Union and that of a revolutionary war for the abolition of slavery. The decisive role in the defeat of the Southern slaveholders and the victory of the North in April 1865 was played by the workers and farmers. Marx analysed the causes and the nature of the war in his articles published in the Viennese newspaper Die Presse (see present edition, Vol. 19).— 344, 357
[47] The French Marshal Bazaine, who had surrendered the Metz fortress in October 1870 during the Franco-Prussian war, was charged with high treason and sentenced to death in December 1873. Two days later, the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. In August 1874, after eight months in prison, Bazaine fled to Spain.—35, 251
[478] Reichenbach, an aspiring writer living in Paris, sent a letter and several books to Marx's address to be passed on to Rudolph Meyer. In a letter to Marx of 27 May 1879 Meyer apologised for the inconvenience caused and expressed a wish to meet him.— 359
[479] J. Gugenheim, the secretary of the German Workers' Educational Society in London (see Note 55), had asked Engels to deliver 'a scientific lecture' there.—360
[4 8 2] An extract from this letter was published in English for the first time in The Labour Monthly, Vol. 15, No. 9, IX, London, 1933. In full it appeared in: Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1955. The letter is written on the back of Bernstein's letter to Engels.— 360
[484] The writing of Anti-Dühring, which Engels began in late May 1876, caused him to postpone a n u m b e r of scientific works he was planning or had already started, notably the Dialectics of Nature (see also Note 169).— 361
[50] Engels is probably referring to José Mesa's letter of 24 August 1874. The latter wrote that despite his enforced move to Paris he still kept in touch with members of the Spanish section of the International Working Men's Association in Madrid, on which Engels could rely, and supplied a number of addresses.—39, 43
[53] Sorge withdrew from the General Council on 12 August 1874 and informed Engels about this on 14 August; his official resignation followed on 25 September.—41
[487] introduction of the so-called local siege in Berlin and its environs. Liebknecht stated that the Social-Democratic Party would abide by the Anti-Socialist Law, being 'a party of reform in the strictest sense of the word'. His speech showed that some Social-Democratic leaders were undecided about the tactics to be adopted in the initial months following the introduction of the Anti-Socialist Law.—364 4 8 ' An excerpt from this letter was published in English for the first time in: Marx, Engels, Lenin, On Scientific Communism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1967. It appeared almost in full in: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Letters on 'Capital', New Park Publications Ltd., London, 1983.—365
[4 8 8] Marx is referring to Carlo Cafiero's pamphlet II Capitale di Carlo Marx, which was a popular exposition of the first volume of Capital. It appeared in Italian in Milan in 1879.—365
[341] A reference to the English translation of Johann Most's pamphlet Kapital und Arbeit (see Note 154) done by Otto Weydemeyer from the second German edition of the work. It was originally published in the form of eleven extracts from Marx's Capital in the American weekly, The Labor Standard, between 30 December 1877 and 10 March 1878. In August 1878, the work appeared anonymously as a separate pamphlet.—276, 366
[489] Nothing is known about what has happened to the original letter. T h e r e is a copy and a rough draft which largely coincide. Engels may have made the copy for Carl Hirsch (see Note 497).—366
[491] A phrase from Wilhelm Liebknecht's letter to Carl Hirsch of 28 July 1879 (see also this volume, p. 396), which Hirsch sent on to Marx and Engels.— 367
[495] p a r t 0f this letter was published in English for the first time in: Marx, Engels, On Literature and Art, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976 and in full in The Letters of Karl Marx, selected and translated with explanatory notes and an introduction by Saul K. Padover, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.—369
[96] An extract from this letter was published in English for the first time in: K. Marx and F. Engels, Letters on 'Capital', New Park Publications Ltd., London, 1983.—78, 205, 206, 207, 287, 308
[498] This letter was published in English for the first time in: K. Marx, On Education, Women and Children. Arranged and edited, with an introduction and new translations by Saul K. Padover. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1975.—371
[497] Enclosed in Carl Hirsch's letter to Marx of 7 August 1879 was a copy of Engels' letter to August Bebel of 4 August (see this volume, pp. 366-68). Hirsch quoted the letter he had received from Liebknecht that day concerning the planned illegal party printed organ (see Note 490). Marx and Engels used this information for their Circular Letter to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilhelm Bracke and Others (see this volume, p. 395).—369, 372
[5 0 3] The first volume of the Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik edited by Karl Höchberg under the assumed n a m e of Dr Ludwig Richter, appeared in Zurich in August 1879; Engels received this issue on 28 August, immediately after his return from Eastbourne.— 374
[5 0 7] An excerpt from this letter was published in English for the first time in: Karl Marx, On America and the Civil War. Edited and translated by Saul K. Padover, New York, 1972. In full, it appeared in The Letters of Karl Marx, selected and translated with explanatory notes and an introduction by Saul K. Padover, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.—376
[509] Engels' letter to Liebknecht of 20 August 1879 mentioned here has not been found (see this volume, p. 372). August Bebel, who wrote to Engels on the same day, could not possibly have known what it was about.— 378, 394
[177] From 1874, Charles Longuet taught French at the King's College in London, and Jenny Longuet — German at Clement Dun's school. In 1880, after the Paris Commune members had been amnestied, Longuet returned to Paris.—132, 378, 391, 447
[5 1 1] In his letter of 24 August Karl H ö chberg wrote that, as far as h e was informed, Engels had refused to contribute to Der Sozialdemokrat because of Carl Hirsch's unfavourable reports. O n the real reasons why Marx and Engels refused to contribute to the paper, see this volume, pp. 412-13.— 379
[2] Worried by the report of Marx's illness in the Frankfurter Zeitung, Ludwig Kugelmann wrote to Engels on 13 January 1874 asking him for more information concerning the state of Marx's health.—3
[115] secretaries, and Geib, the treasurer. Thus the Executive came to comprise three
[430] On 27 September 1878, the Vorwärts, No. 114 (the 'Aus England, London, 20.
[516] j± reference to the meeting between Alexander II and William I, which took place on 3 and 4 September 1879 in Alexandrovo, not far from the Russian-German border.— 384
[318] A reference to Brogue's first term of office as Chairman of the Council of Ministers from May 1873 to May 1874. Broglie's reactionary ministry declared the establishment of 'moral order' as its goal.—251
[522] The 12th annual British Trades Union Congress took place in Edinburgh between 15 and 20 September 1879.—391
[524] An extract from this letter was published in English for the first time in the
[525] magazine International Press Correspondence, No. 39, Berlin, 1931; minus the introduction (address to August Bebel), the letter was published in English in: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Correspondence. 1846-1895. A Selection with Commentary and Notes, Martin Lawrence Ltd., London, 1934. It appears in full in the present edition, Vol. 24.— 394 325 This letter, intended by Marx and Engels for 'private circulation among the German leaders' (see this volume, p. 414), is a major document of their struggle against reformism and for the revolutionary programme of the Social-Democratic party. The draft was written by Engels in mid-September 1879, discussed with Marx on 17 September, and despatched with their signatures. The italics in the letters of the third parties quoted by Engels are his own.—394
[9] In the Reichstag elections of 10 January 1874, Johann Jacoby failed to obtain a majority vote in any of the constituencies where he had been nominated. At the second ballot held on 27 January, he was elected in the Leipzig Constituency, but refused to take up his seat in protest at the Imperial Constitution. As a result, the Social-Democrats lost one seat in the Reichstag. Jacoby's conduct was criticised by Der Volksstaat, 20 February 1874.—7, 9
[526] Carl Hirsch received Wilhelm Liebknecht's letter of 28 July 1879, of which he
[27] In the second half of July 1874, Marx took a rest cure in Ryde on the Isle of Wight. Engels was in Ramsgate (Eastbourne) between mid-July and mid-August 1874.—21, 43
[528] Hirsch and Höchberg met in Paris on 15 and 16 August 1879.— 397
[29] Bismarck spent July and August 1874 at Bad Kissingen where an assassination attempt was made on him on 13 July. It was organised by the Catholic clergy enraged by the Kulturkampf policy he was pursuing (see Note 35). Bismarck was wounded by a shot fired by the artisan Kullmann.— 23, 24, 312
[330] Sheikh-al-Islam—title of the head of the Moslem clergy in Turkey (the Ottoman Empire).— 263
[532] Barricade fighting in Berlin on 18 March 1848 marked the beginning of the 1848-49 revolution in Germany.—404
[95] This is a draft of Engels' reply to Patrick John Coleman's letter of 19 May 1875. It was written down on the last page of Coleman's letter informing Engels about his intention to go into trading business and requesting him to become security for him.— 76
[33] Pierre Magne, the finance minister in the Mac-Mahon government, tried to eliminate the enormous budget deficit of 1873 (149 million francs), among other things by greatly increasing indirect taxes on all everyday necessities. In July 1874, his proposals were discussed in the French National Assembly. They were opposed by the left-wing deputies, who feared discontent and possible mass protests. After a stormy debate, some of Magne's proposals were rejected, and he was forced to resign.— 24
[118] found.—87 3 The reference is to the battle of 1 September 1870 during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, in which the French army was smashed. The crushing defeat at Sedan speeded up the collapse of the Second Empire and led to the proclamation of a republic in France on 4 September 1870.— 88, 155, 251, 297 4 On Marx's and Engels' attitude to the German socialist Gustav Adolph Köttgen, see their 'Letter from the Brussels Communist Correspondence Committee to G. A. Köttgen' (present edition. Vol. 6, pp. 54-56).— 88 5 The introduction to Grün's book was published under the heading 'Ueber Weltanschauungen. Präludium zur Philosophie in der Gegenwart' in Die Wage, Nos. 33-38, 20 August-17 September 1875. The book itself was completed in March 1876 and issued by Otto Wiegand's publishing house (K. Grün, Die Philosophie in der Gegenwart. Realismus und Idealismus, Leipzig, 1876). In May 1873, Engels had made a start on one of his principal works, Dialectics of Nature.— 88 6 A reference to the anonymous and undated pamphlet published in Brussels under the title Quelques mots d'un groupe socialiste révolutionnaire russe à propos de la brochure: Alliance de la Démocratie socialiste et l'Association Internationale des Travailleurs. The pamphlet was presumably written by Michal Kasper Turski. It was spearheaded against Marx's and Engels' work The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Working Men's Association (see present edition, Vol. 23). Lavrov wrote to Engels on 20 September 1875: 'You have probably seen a small pamphlet that Nechayev's anonymous followers have published in Brussels as a response to the pamphlet about the "Alliance". But, of course, neither the group nor its writings are of any value whatsoever.' In late September-early October 1875 Lavrov sent a copy of the pamphlet to Engels.— 91 7 In a letter to Marx of 25 September 1875, Peter Imandt enclosed an article, 'The International Working Men's Association. By an Internationalist', carried by The Dundee Advertiser on that day. 'The enclosure will show you that The Dundee Advertiser has a very good friend of yours among its correspondents. I was surprised to see the article this morning, and have no idea where it originates,' he wrote.— 92 8 Under the terms of the peace treaty signed after its defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71, France paid 5,000-million-franc reparations to Germany, which contributed to the rapid growth of German economy. The period of feverish business activity, which witnessed the mushrooming of railway, industrial, construction and commercial joint-stock companies, banks and credit and social security companies and was accompanied by large-scale speculation, stock-exchange swindles and machinations, has come to be known as Gründerjahre (or the period of Criindertum). By 1873 it had resulted in a crash followed by an economic crisis, which lasted well into 1877.—92, 131, 218, 304, 335, 405, 447
[534] f his note is written on a postcard addressed to: 'Carl Hirsch, Esq., 12 Fitzroy
[535] Street, Fitzroy Square, W.'—409 53D j n his ]etter to Marx of 30 August (11 September) 1879, Danielson wrote about the publication of the first part of Maxim Kovalevsky's 'very interesting work' Communal Landownership and the Causes, Course and Consequences of Its Disintegration and offered to send a copy to Marx if he had not yet received one from the author. Marx began a study of the work in October, making detailed notes on the nature of the commune and its place and socio-economic role in different epochs and among different nations.—409
[41] the 1870s and the early 1880s, as the working-class movement began to grow,
[5 0 4] Carl Hirsch described the circumstances of his arrest and deportation from France in August 1879 in a letter to Engels of 23 August 1879.— 374, 412
[296] In his letters to Marx of 9 July and to Engels of 10 July 1877, Franz Wiede proposed that they contribute to the Neue Gesellschaft magazine he was planning to start (the first issue appeared in Zurich in October 1877). In a letter to Engels of 20 July 1877, Wiede asked for a speedy reply to his proposal.—240, 241, 247, 413
[148] The reference is to the publication of the English translation of the Manifesto of the Communist Party in the United States of America. As a delegate to the Hague Congress of the International in 1872 Sorge had brought with him the English translation of the Manifesto made by Hermann Meyer and asked Marx and Engels to look it through. They promised to make the necessary additions and corrections, but an excessive workload prevented them from doing so.—115, 276, 283, 414
[4 8 5] An excerpt from this letter was published in English for the first time in: Karl Marx, Selected Works, in two volumes, Vol. II, Moscow-Leningrad, [1936].— 364, 416
[537] A rough draft of this letter is extant which essentially coincides with the letter published in this volume. The passages crossed out in the draft, as well as additions contained in it, are given in the footnotes.—416
[338] Q n go (jg) July 1877, Russian troops made a second unsuccessful attempt to capture Plevna.— 272
[539] Engels is referring to the smuggling into Germany of the Social-Democratic newspapers Die Laterne and Der Sozialdemokrat printed abroad after the introduction of the Anti-Socialist Law (see Note 462).—417
[40] influence in the Polish lands under Prussian jurisdiction. In the second half of
[19] The agricultural labourers' movement for shorter working hours and higher wages in the central and eastern counties of England began in March 1872 with a strike in Warwickshire, where the Agricultural Labourers' Union was set up. In May 1872, the National Agricultural Labourers' Union was formed under Joseph Arch's leadership and by late 1873 its membership had reached about 100,000. By April 1874, the strikers managed to win a pay rise.—18, 29
[541] August Bebel tried to justify the tactics of the Social-Democratic deputies in the debate of protective tariffs in the Reichstag (see Note 502) by referring to the resolution passed by the party congresses in 1876 and 1877. It stated that the issue had no major significance for the party and that, this being so, party members are allowed to act as they saw fit.—418
[169] nine months, but in the meantime Arnim had departed for Switzerland for
[286] At the 29 May sitting of the Gotha Congress of the German Socialist Workers' Party (27-29 May 1877), Diihring's followers demanded that the publication of Engels' Anti-Dühring be stopped in the party's central organ. The proposal was made by Johann Most and Julius Vahlteich. August Bebel proposed that Engels' work appear as a separate edition rather than in the Vorwärts. Referring to the resolution of the 1876 congress concerning the publication of Engels' articles, Wilhelm Liebknecht suggested that they should be carried either by the scientific supplement to the Vorwärts or in the Zukunft magazine, or as separate pamphlets. Parts II and III of Anti-Dühring appeared in the supplement to the Vorwärts.—236, 238, 243, 258, 288, 420
[4 0 8] T h e reptile fund—the special fund at Bismarck's disposal for bribing the press and individual journalists. Reptiles was the name used by the left-wing press to designate periodicals which defended the interests of the government and had been bribed by it.— 315, 328, 334, 421
[546] On 18 November 1879, August Bebel wrote to Engels that the reference in Ignaz Auer's article, marked 'Von der Niederelbe, 23. Oktober' and printed anonymously by Der Sozialdemokrat, No. 5, 2 November 1879 (see also this 35-406 volume, pp. 420-21), was to Most, not to Engels. The explanation was that, at the time, Auer had not yet familiarised himself with Marx's and Engels' Circular Letter to the German Social-Democratic leaders. On 11 December, Bebe! informed Engels that he had received a letter from Auer who assured him that he had meant Most and Erhardt, not Engels.—423, 429
[5 4 7] Engels probably did not read the review of Rudolph Meyer's Politische Gründer und die Corruption in Deutschland published by the Vorwärts, No. 27, 4 March 1877.—424
[48] On 30 August 1874, the Viennese newspaper Der Sprudel reported: 'The long-standing leader of the International, Marx, and the head of the Russian Nihilists, the Polish Count Plater, have arrived at Karlsbad for a cure.' The next issue (No. 19, 6 September 1874) stated that Count Plater was associated neither with the Russian Nihilists nor with the International.— 37
[549] editorial 'Zur Eröffnung des sächsischen Landtages', printed in Der
[550] Sozi(ddemokrat on 16 November 1879, stated that the three Social-Democrats
[551] elected to the Saxon Landtag (Wilhelm Liebknecht, Otto Freytag and Ludwig Puttrich) had taken the oath of allegiance to King William I. This legal procedure enabled them to perform their duties as deputies. Reporting this on 22 November 1879 in the 'Socialpolitische Rundschau' column, the Freiheit edited by Most sharply criticised the behaviour of the Social-Democratic deputies.—425, 430 349 x ( l e Thirty Years' War (1618-48)—a European war in which the Pope, the Spanish and the Austrian Habsburgs and the German Catholic princes rallied under the banner of Catholicism against the Protestant countries. T h e rulers of Catholic France — rivals of the Habsburgs — s u p p o r t e d the Protestant camp.— 425 ,->50 Q n 23 November, Der Sozialdemokrat carried August Bebel's review of B e r n h a r d Becker's Geschichte und Theorie der Pariser revolutionären Kommune des Jahres 1871. The book, written by 'a d r u n k a r d and wastrel', as he put it, was Übel against socialists and the Commune ' . — 4 2 5 3 o 1 The addressee of this note is not quite certain. T h e note is to be found in the autograph album belonging to the French revolutionary Gustave Brocher who resided in London from 1876. A facsimile of the note is included in the book Letter to G. P. Brocher. The Last Communard oj 1871. Les Anciennes. P. Kropotkin, P. L. Lavrov (published in Russian in Paris in 1924) and is supplied with a caption that reads: 'A genuine letter by Karl Marx addressed to Professor Brocher in 1879 in English. The author of the letter asks Brocher to dinner.' These facts give reasons to believe that Marx's unknown correspondent was Gustave Brocher. There is, however, another hypothesis. In April 1883, Brocher requested Engels to send him Marx's autograph and wrote again on 2 July to thank him for it. Marx's note to the unknown correspondent could have been this autograph.—427
[552] -ph e o r i g i n a ] 0f this letter as well as Marx's letter to Charles Walstone of 26 January- 1880 (see present edition, Vol. 46) are kept in Lord Walstone's family archive. In 1968 he passed on their photocopies to the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CC CPSU, Moscow. According to Lord Walstone, the addressee was his father, the British archaeologist Charles Walstone, who at that time had his father's family name, Waldstein. Marx must have met Lord Walstone's father during a lecture at the British Museum.—427
[5 5 3] Engels is answering Thomas Allsop's letter of 12 December 1879, in which the latter asked for Engels' opinion of the article from The Pall Mall Gazette enclosed in the letter. Allsop did not mention the title of the article or the date of the paper, so it can only be conjectured that this was one of the four articles dealing with the crisis of the autocracy in Russia printed on 4, 9, 10 and 12 December by The Pall Mall Gazette: ' The Czar and His People', 'Kill or Cure for Russian Despotism', 'What Next in Russia' and ' The Collapse of Authority in Russia'.—428
[54] On 7-13 September 1874, a number of organisations that had found themselves outside the International due to their refusal to recognise the Hague Congress resolutions (see Note 20) held a congress in Brussels that declared itself the seventh congress of the International Working Men's Association. It was attended by members of anarchist groups from Switzerland, Spain and Belgium, two Lassalleans — members of German workers' organisations in Belgium — and Eccarius, who had been delegated by the breakaway faction of the British Federation. The congress revealed disagreement among the participants, including the anarchists themselves, on the issue of the working class' attitude to the state.—42, 49
[127] An extract from this letter was published in English for the first time in: K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1955.—99, 429
[346] Marx is referring to the joint invasion of Mexico by France, Britain and Spain in December 1861 with the aim of overthrowing the progressive government of Benito Juarez. However, the heroic resistance put up by the Mexican people forced the invaders to leave the country.— 278
[5 4 8] T h e
[556] Wilhelm Bracke became a Social-Democratic deputy. An additional election to the Reichstag was held in Magdeburg not on Thursday, as Engels states, but on Wednesday, 10 December 1879. It was conducted against the background of the Anti-Socialist Law (see Note 462), but the Social-Democrats managed to get their deputy Louis Viereck, who had won over 4,000 votes out of the total of more than 14,000, take part in the second ballot. The Social-Democrats' influence was clearly growing.—428, 431 "r> Engels quotes from 'Preßgeschichtliche Rückblicke' published in Der Sozialdemokrat on 7 December 1879 with minor changes.—429 >>b August Bebel wrote to Engels on 1 1 December 1879: 'Specifically on the issue of the oath, I hold a different opinion. I, too, believed that the oath had to be taken; if one refused to take it, then one needn't have participated in the elections. But I should like it ... to be stated that we regard the oath only as a formality that has to be observed because without it no access to the chamber and no use of the mandate are possible. The oath does not shake our socialist republican convictions'.—431
[5 5 4] At the Reichstag elections of 30 July 1878, 437,158 votes were cast for the
[557] Waiters ( H e u l e r ) — the n a m e which the republican democrats in Germany applied in 1848-49 to the moderate constitutionals, who, in turn, called their opponents 'agitators' (Wühler).—431
[538] August Bebel's letter to Engels of 23 October 1879 (see notes 541, 543 and 544) and that of Friedrich Wilhelm Fritzsche and Wilhelm Liebknecht of 21 October enclosed with it, were a reply to Marx's and Engels' Circular Letter to the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party (see this volume, pp. 394-408). Fritzsche and Liebknecht considered Marx's and Engels' criticism of their conciliatory attitude to the reformist policies advocated by Karl Höchberg, Carl August Schramm and Eduard Bernstein to be unwarranted.—416
[5 5 9] In a letter to Engels of 16 December 1879, Johann Philipp Becker raved against the activities of the anarchists in Geneva.—434
[5 6 0] Constitutionals—representatives of the liberal opposition movement advocating moderate constitutional reform in Russia.—434
[561] The rough draft of this letter was written on the spare page of one Amélie Engel's letter to Engels, in which she asked for financial assistance. Nothing further is known about Engels' letter.—434
[462] The Anti-Socialist Law (The Exceptional Law Against the Socialists) was introduced by the Bismarck government on a majority vote in the Reichstag on 21 October 1878 to combat the socialist and working-class movement. It banned all party and mass workers' organisations and the socialist and workers' press, and sanctioned confiscation of socialist literature and persecution of Social-Democrats. But the Social-Democratic Party, in accordance with the Constitution, preserved its group in the Reichstag. By skilfully combining illegal and legal methods of work and suppressing reformist and anarchist tendencies within its ranks, the party managed substantially to strengthen and extend its influence among the masses. Marx and Engels actively assisted the party's leaders. Under pressure from the working-class movement, the law was repealed on 1 October 1890. Engels examined it in his essay 'Bismarck and the German Working Men's Party' (present edition, Vol. 24, pp. 407-09).—350, 383, 386, 389, 399, 413, 418, 428, 433
[3] Marx, accompanied by his daughter Eleanor, took a rest cure at Harrogate between 24 November and 15 December 1873.— 3, 17
[55] The reference is to the German Workers' Educational Society in London founded in February 1840 by Karl Schapper, Joseph Moll and other members of the League of the Just. After the establishment of the Communist League in 1847, the leading role in the Society was assumed by the League's local communities. Marx and Engels were actively involved in its work in 1847 and 1849-50. On 17 September 1850, Marx, Engels and some of their followers left the Society in protest at the domination of the Willich-Schapper group, and rejoined it only in the late 1850s. After the foundation of the International Working Men's Association, the Society with Lessner among its leaders, became its German section in London. The London Educational Society existed until 1918, when it was closed down by the British government.—49, 351, 363, 364, 434, 443
[467] On 31 December 1878, the government submitted for the Reichstag's
[12] Marx's letter has not been found.—10, 31, 33, 34, 75, 176, 189, 193, 222, 270, 276, 311, 353, 376, 382, 412
[473] The text below (including the paragraph beginning: 'Thirdly: My medical adviser...') was quoted almost in full by Danielson in the preface to the first Russian edition of Volume Two of Capital, St Petersburg, 1885, pp. XIII-XIV.—354
[11] This letter from Marx to George Moore, like that of 28 March, dealt with the business of the firm holding a patent for engraving work; the partners were Paul Lafargue, Benjamin Le Moussu and George Moore. In late summer 1873, Lafargue withdrew from the firm and Marx took his place. The firm fell apart in the spring of 1874.—10
[4] In the Reichstag elections of 10 January 1874, the German Social Democrats scored a significant victory. The number of votes cast for them rose from 41,461 in 1871 to 171,351; six deputies (including Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, who were serving a prison sentence at the time) were elected, as against two at the 1871 elections. For the first time, three seats went to the General Association of German Workers which polled 180,319 votes. Alongside the left-wingers, the clerical Party of the Centre (see Note 423) also managed to strengthen its position. Marx referred to its members as the 'ultramontanes'. The latter advocated unlimited authority for the Catholic Church and opposed the Kulturkampf (see Note 35) pursued by Bismarck. Engels learned about the results of the elections from Kugelmann's letter of 13 January 1874.—3, 6, 43
[6] The reference is to the address 'Compagnons, notre Association traverse...' issued in Geneva in August 1873 and signed by H. Perret, C. Bernard, T. Duval, M. Josseron, P. Detallancourt, H. Renauld and Laplace. Timed to coincide with the Geneva Congress (see Note 5), it was directed against some of the Hague Congress resolutions (see Note 20) on organisational issues.—4
[7] The Ligue universelle des Corporations ouvrières was set up in late 1873-early 1874 by Perret and other members of the Swiss working-class movement. The attempts by the League's founders to involve German and British trade unions in its work having failed, the League ceased to exist.—5
[4 8 0] O n 24 May 1879, the 'Socialpolitische Rundschau' column of the Freiheit criticised the Social-Democratic deputies' stand in the Reichstag on protective tariffs (see Note 502).—360, 362
[4 8 1] O n 16 May, 1879 Engels sent a letter to Wilhelm Bracke (not extant) with the request that he forward it to August Bebel. As follows from Bebel's reply to Bracke of 24 May, Engels criticised Wilhelm Liebknecht's Reichstag speech on the introduction of the state of siege in Berlin (see Note 486) as evidence of the Social-Democrats' submission to the Anti-Socialist Law.— 360, 364
[313] imprisoned. The Paris papers hushed up the scandal. The Vorwärts viewed this
[486] A reference to Liebknecht's speech in the Reichstag on 17 March 1879 on the
[1] This letter was published in English for the first time in Letters to Dr. Kugelmann by Karl Marx, Co-operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the USSR, Moscow-Leningrad, 1934.—3, 17, 21, 31, 32
[490] This refers to the preparations for the publication of the illegal newspaper Der Sozialdemokrat in Zurich, the new central printed organ ot the Socialist Workers' Party of Germany. The need for such a newspaper emerged after a ban on the entire party press, above all the Vorwärts, following the introduction of the Anti-Socialist Law in October 1878 (see Note 462). In July-September 1879, extensive correspondence on the political line of the new paper and its editors was maintained between August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Louis Viereck (in Leipzig), Carl Hirsch (in Paris), Eduard Bernstein, Karl Höchberg, Carl August Schramm (in Zurich), and Marx and Engels (in London). The campaign Marx and Engels conducted for a sound political line of the party's future central printed organ is fully expounded in their Circular Letter to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilhelm Bracke and Others of 17-18 September 1879 (see this volume, pp. 394-408).—367, 373, 374, 378, 383, 388, 393, 415
[492] Bernstein's letter to Hirsch of 24 July 1879 is also quoted and mentioned by Marx and Engels in the Circular Letter (see this volume, p. 395).— 367, 373
[493] Mentioned here is Eduard Bernstein's letter to Carl Hirsch of 31 July 1879. Marx and Engels quote it in their Circular Letter (see this volume, p. 395).—367, 412
[494] Marx and his daughter Eleanor (Tussy) left for Jersey on 8 August and stayed there until 20 August 1879.—368, 369, 372, 409
[15] Engels' letter has not been found.—14, 15, 24, 38, 66, 130, 132, 134, 159, 180, 184, 195, 201, 219, 243, 257, 271, 316, 345, 369, 375
[500] Q n 21 August 1879, Marx interrupted his stay in Jersey (see Note 494) and arrived in Ramsgate to join his daughter Jenny and her newborn son Edgar. He returned to London on 17 September.—372, 374, 378, 381, 385, 388, 390, 393, 394, 409, 415
[496] Between 5 and 7 August 1879, Engels, accompanied by Carl Schorlemmer, left for a holiday in Eastbourne. He returned to London on 28 August.— 369, 372, 376, 378, 380
[501] Marx and Engels included a concise exposition of Liebknecht's letter to Engels of 14 August 1879 in the Circular Letter (see this volume, p. 396). Engels' reply is not extant.— 372, 378
[502] A reference to the speech made by the socialist deputy Max Kayser with the consent of the Social-Democratic group in the Reichstag on 17 May 1879 in defence of the government plan to introduce protective tariffs. Marx and Engels sharply criticised Kayser, who supported a proposal made in the interests of big industrialists and landowners and prejudicial to the mass of the population. They also c o n d e m n e d the lenient attitude displayed towards it by some of the German Social-Democratic leaders (see this volume, pp. 396-401).— 373, 424
[499] On 18 August 1879, Marx's daughter Jenny Longuet gave birth to a son, Edgar, in Ramsgate.—371, 373, 376, 378, 381, 382
[5] The Geneva Congress of the International Working Men's Association took place between 8 and 13 September 1873. Marx and Engels reversed their original intention to take part in its work, since the mounting reprisals against the working-class movement and financial difficulties precluded its being a truly international assembly. Unable to send their own delegations, nearly all the International's organisations handed over their mandates to the delegates of Romance Switzerland. When debating the Rules, the majority led by Johann Philipp Becker confirmed the Hague Congress resolutions (see Note 20) to extend the sphere of competence of the General Council, notwithstanding the opposition of the Swiss delegates Henri Perret and Theodore Duval. The congress emphasised the need for the working class to wage a political struggle. New York remained the seat of the General Council. The Geneva Congress of 1873 was the last congress of the International Working Men's Association.—4
[506] Engels answered Karl Höchberg's letter of 24 August 1879 on 26 August (see this volume, pp. 379-80). A reply to Bebel's letter to Engels of 20 August 1879 was the Circular Letter to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilhelm Bracke and Others (see this volume, pp. 394-408).—375, 386, 397
[13] An excerpt from this letter was published in English for the first time in: K. Marx, On History and People, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1977. It appeared in English in full in The Letters of Karl Marx, selected and translated with explanatory notes and an introduction by Saul K. Padover, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1979.—13, 135
[5 1 2] O n 24 August 1879, Johann Most wrote to Marx that the Chicagoer Arbeiter Zeitung had published Carl Lübeck's report alleging Marx and Engels had made an official statement against the Freiheit. Johann Most asked Marx to let him know whether or not this was true.— 381, 414
[5 1 3] A reference to the programmatic article 'Rückblicke auf die sozialistische Bewegung in Deutschland' which appeared anonymously in the Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, Jg. 1, 1. Hälfte, Zürich-Oberstrass, 1879, S. 75-96. Its authors were Karl Höchberg (pen-name Ludwig Richter), Eduard Bernstein and Carl August Schramm. Marx and Engels examined it in detail in the Circular Letter (this volume, pp. 401-08).—383, 386, 389, 393, 394, 413, 420, 430, 432
[514] s H The Freiheit of 30 August 1879, and its sample issue called 'Was nun?' of 6 September carried two articles criticising the first volume of the Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik from an anarchist viewpoint. The first article, printed in the 'Socialpolitische Rundschau' column, reviewed the materials featured by the Jahrbuch and the second, 'Auch eine Denkschrift', analysed the article 'Rückblicke auf die sozialistische Bewegung in Deutschland'.— 383, 386
[519] In his articles 'Die Zolldebatte' and 'Zur Kaiser'schen Rede und Abstimmung' in Die Laterne, a weekly he was publishing (Nos 21 and 23, 25 May and 8 June 1879), Carl Hirsch scathingly criticised the speech made in the Reichstag by Max Kayser, who supported the government plan to introduce protective customs tariffs (see Note 502).—388, 397, 414, 418
[32] In 1870, the Gladstone government introduced a reform of public education which provided for the opening of secular schools controlled by locally elected school boards (alongside parish schools) at which religious instruction was no longer compulsory. The reform was attacked by the Conservatives. In mid-July 1874, one of them, Lord Sandon, proposed an amendment to the law of 1869 which had established the Endowed Schools Commission. He suggested that the money be henceforth distributed by the Charity Commission, which would have allowed the church to regain the ground it had lost in school education. Sandon's Bill was strongly opposed by the Liberals.— 24, 67
[348] On 18 March 1876, Ferdinand Lingenau, a German socialist who had emigrated to the United States, bequeathed about $7,000 to the Socialist Workers' Party of Germany, naming August Bebel, Johann Philipp Becker, Wilhelm Bracke, August Geib, Wilhelm Liebknecht and Karl Marx as executors. After his death on 4 August 1877, they tried to have his estate passed on to the party, but Bismarck managed to prevent this by applying diplomatic pressure.— 279, 393, 410
[62] No. 140, 2 December 1874. After Marx's intervention, the error was set right
[542] A reference to the 'Rechenschaftsbericht der sozialdemokratischen Mitglieder des deutschen Reichstages' signed by Bebel, Bracke, Fritzsche, Kayser, Liebknecht, and other deputies and carried by Der Sozialdemokrat, Nos. 2-4, 12, 19 and 26 October 1879.—419, 424
[406] On 11 May and 2 June 1878, assassination attempts were made on William I, the first by unemployed tinner Max Hödel and the second by anarchist Karl Eduard Nobiling, who had never belonged to the Socialist Workers' Party of 34* Germany. These events provoked a vicious campaign against the socialists and provided a pretext for the promulgation of the Anti-Socialist Law in October 1878 (see Note 462). In his turn, Bismarck used the assassination attempts to break down the resistance of the National Liberals (see Note 540), who had a short while before voted down the government proposal to introduce protective tariffs on iron. As a result of Bismarck's policies, the National Liberal Party lost about a quarter of its seats in the 1878 Reichstag elections.— 314, 419, 424, 449