Letter to Karl Marx, October 22, 1868

Author(s) Friedrich Engels
Written 22 October 1868


First published abridged in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx. Bd. 4, Stuttgart, 1913 and in full in MEGA, Abt. III, Bd. 4, Berlin, 1931
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 43


ENGELS TO MARX

IN LONDON

Manchester, 22 October 1868

Dear Moor,

The little Russian Ermen,[1] whose fate you can see from the enclosed paper, has, on the pretext that he must now settle down, been living in our office for a week now, and has only emerged rather drunk to visit his betrothed. Since the whole office was turned into a pub, no sort of work could be done, and that is why I have only now got around to writing to you.

I have not yet been able to read the Congress reports in the Social-Demokrat, which are also very boring.[2] Apart from this, Schweitzer shows that he is very serious about his sect. Not only has the General Association of German Workers been reformed, with its headquarters in Berlin and with new statutes, the only alterations having been made, compared to the old statutes, with an eye to the Law on Association,[3] but every detail shows that in the new TRADES UNIONS GAGW aims to play (but openly) the same role as our old secret league[4] did in the legal associations. The TRADES UNIONS are only to form an exoteric party of the Lassallean church of sole salvation, but only the latter remains the one of sole salvation. If Eichhoff forms a separate association in Berlin,[5] he is promised gracious toleration on the condition that his association takes a 'friendly' attitude towards GAGW. But Schweitzer and his Association remain "the party", and the others may come and join it; or else remain heretics and DISSENTERS.

Apart from this, the fellow has a much clearer grasp than all the others of the general political situation and a much clearer attitude to the other parties; and he is cleverer in his presentation than all the others. He calls 'all old parties facing us, one single reactionary mass, and their differences are scarcely of any significance for us'. He recognises that 1866 and its results are ruining the system of petty principalities, undermining the principle of legitimacy, shaking reaction, and have set the people in motion, but he has—now—also come out against the other results, the burden of taxes, etc., and his attitude to Bismarck is more 'correct', as the Berliners say, than e.g. Liebknecht's is, with regard to the ex-princes. You will have seen that he cites the Elector of Hesse[6] as a historical authority—on the all-too-familiar subjects—and in his last number he allows a true Hanoverian to strike up a Guelphic whimpering.[7] On this last point, couldn't you for once tell Wilhelm what is what? It is really asking a lot to expect us to support a paper in which he allows such dirty tricks.

Have at least a part of the anti-Proudhons[8] sent to London; these few remaining copies cannot be replaced. I myself have none. Vieweg should be asked to account for the copies sold since 1865. It is, in addition, certainly a good thing that you are following the matter up, even though only now. There is always the possibility that something may still come out of it.

The business with the Westminster[9] is very good. Do not allow time to slip by; the article should appear in the January issue; so send me the stuff as soon as possible, so I may do my part. It is very good that these fellows would not use a simple presentation of a new scientific development without the phraseology of their 'ESSAYS', which make the matter not only less clear, but also drier. I would, however, also ask Mr Beesly how many printed sheets would be available. The stuff I sent you would have made 1 sheet in the Fortnightly, but about 1 1/2 in the Westminster. According to space—and since only one article is possible here—we should consider whether and which parts of the book should be left out completely—for instance I do not believe it will be possible to include the chapter on accumulation[10] without cutting down the space for the main subject too much.

I've read Darwin's first volume on DOMESTICATION.[11] Only details are new, and then not much of importance.

With best greetings.

Your

F. E.

  1. ↑ Anton Ermen
  2. ↑ Der Social Demokrat, Nos. 114, 115, 116 and 117 (with supplements); 30 September, 2, 4, 7 October 1868, Allgemeiner deutscher Arbeiter Congress. Statut. Geschäfts Reglement, Social Demokrat, No. 119, 11 October 1868.
  3. ↑ A reference to the reactionary Prussian Law on Associations passed on 11 March 1850.
  4. ↑ The bronze workers of Paris went on strike in February 1867 when, in response to their demand for fixed tariffs, their employers insisted that they dissolve their credit society, Société de crédit et de solidarité des ouvriers du bronze. Thanks to the General Council, which discussed the matter at its meetings of 5, 12, 19 and 26 March and 2 and 9 April 1867 (see The General Council of the First International. 1866-1868. Minutes, Moscow, 1964, pp. 101-03, 105-06, 107, 108), Paris workers received financial aid from the British trade unions. The strike ended in a victory for the bronze workers, who managed to preserve their organisation. The employers agreed to introduce fixed rates for individual types of work.
  5. ↑ Engels is referring to the Democratic Labour Union (Der Demokratische Arbeiterverein) that was formed in October 1868 following a split in the Berlin Workers' Union, which rejected, by 32 votes against 28, the resolutions of the Nuremberg Congress (see Note 135). A leading role in the founding of the new Union belonged to Eichhoff, who kept in constant touch with Marx and was the Berlin correspondent of the General Council of the First International. On 3 November 1868, at a General Council meeting, Marx reported on the formation of the Democratic Labour Union. On Eichhoff's suggestion, the Union joined the Union of German Workers' Associations headed by Bebel and Liebknecht, and adopted its programme based on the International's principles. The Democratic Labour Union also maintained close contacts with the Berlin Section of the International. Almost all of its members were also members of the International. To emphasise its proletarian character, two workers, Wilcke and Kämmerer, were elected its Presidents. The Democratic Labour Union actively opposed the Lassalleans. Wilhelm Liebknecht used to speak at its meetings. In 1869 it joined the Social-Democratic Workers' Party set up at the Eisenach Congress.
  6. ↑ Ludwig III. See Demokratisches Wochenblatt, No. 40, 3 October 1868, Politische Uebersicht.
  7. ↑ Demokratisches Wochenblatt, No. 42, 17 October 1868 (supplement), 'Ein Hannoveraner...'
  8. ↑ K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy... See this volume, p. 138.
  9. ↑ The Westminster Review; see this volume, p. 138.
  10. ↑ A reference to Chapter VI, 'Der Accumulationsprozess des Kapitals' of the first German edition of Capital's Volume One (1867). Corresponding to it in the second and subsequent German editions is Part VII. In the English edition of 1887 which was prepared by Engels this is Part VII ('The Accumulation of Capital') and Part VIII ('The So-Called Primitive Accumulation') (see present edition, Vol. 35).
  11. ↑ Ch. Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. In 2 vols. London, 1868.