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 

* See this volume, pp. 392-93. 

told Hirsch nothing about all this stuff, it being better to avoid 
unnecessary rows. 

Hochberg 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 Héchberg, 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*” 
1. on account of Hirsch, who would like to see his personal 
business clarified vis-a-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 
Hochberg has any say at all. The articles concerned are: 

1. ‘Rtickblicke auf die sozialistische Bewegung in Deutschland’ 
by « »«(Héchberg and, probably, Bernstein and Lübeck),°" 

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).” 

Héchberg 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 “°! 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 custo Most embraces these 
lamentable propositions, and once again makes himself out to be 
the genuine representative of the German movement.’™ 

Enfin, I believe—and no doubt you will share my opinion— 
that, after this business, we would be well-advised to establish our 
standpoint—vis-a-vis the Leipzigers, at least. If the new party 

2 See Litbeck’s reviews of the following books: C. F. W. Walther, Kommunismus und 
Sozialismus, St. Louis, 1878; G. Cohn, Was ist Sozialismus?, Berlin, 1878; 
J. B. Meyer, Fichte, Lassalle und der Sozialismus, Berlin, 1878; C. Frantz, Der 
Féderalismus als leitendes Prinzip für die soziale, staatliche und internationale Organisa- 
tion, Mainz, 1879. In: Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik. Zirich- 
Oberstrass, 1879. - » M. Schflesinger], ‘Bericht tiber den Fortgang der sozialistischen 
Bewegung: Deutsches Reich, I’. In: Jahrbuch ftir Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 
Zurich-Oberstrass, 1879. - © In short 

organ plays the same tune as Hochberg, we might be compelled to 
do so publicly as well.* 

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? 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.? 

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 Friday‘ 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 

“ See this volume, pp. 394-408. - > Ibid., p. 384. - © 5 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 °°? 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.* 

Your 
F. E.