London, 15 May 1885 

Dear Ede, 

I think it’s about time to drop you a line or two again, otherwise 
you will grow far too melancholy. You and Kautsky seem to evoke 
from one another so many doleful laments that a complete concert in 
the minor key could be produced therefrom; it’s like the trombone in 
Wagner that always sounds forth whenever something dire is going to 
happen. Each time you get bad news, the pair of you always forget 
the old adage about a dog’s back being worse than its bite. 

The general and inescapable impression left by the whole shindy 
between ‘parliamentary group and editors’ is that the parliamentary 
group have made fools of themselves. And should the parliamentary 

group insist on doing it again, they ought not to be prevented. Had 
you immediately published the first written communication, as 
they demanded, they would have made complete and utter fools of 
themselves, and a ‘storm of indignation’ would have broken out on all 
sides. Not, of course, that this could very well have been asked of you 
at the start, but there can be no doubt at all that it is not in our inter- 
ests to prevent the parliamentary group from showing themselves in 
their true colours. As things are, ‘parliamentary group and editors’ 
confront each other as equals— in the eyes of the public —, this being 
the result of the last, lengthy middle-of-the-road statement,*°° and 
what happens next, we shall have to see. 

I had Singer here on Sunday,* and cut short all his speechifying. 
The parliamentary group’s first statement, he said, was directed not 
so much against the articles in the paper,*’’ as against the (alleged) 
attempt to try and arouse a storm of indignation against the parlia- 
mentary group. That, I said, was something the public couldn’t have 
known; if you make a public statement, it can only refer to publicly 
available facts. But if you hit out at the paper on account of things 
that have never appeared in it, the public may justifiably ask: “What 
are these gentlemen after, if not the suppression of free speech?’ This 
he had to admit. Next I said that, to judge by what was to me a very 
familiar style, most of the objectionable articles had been by Lieb- 
knecht.— Singer: ‘Quite right, and we gave Liebknecht a proper 
dressing-down for it in the parliamentary group.’ [: ‘But to censure 
the paper in public for printing things that actually emanated from 
the parliamentary group simply won’t do. You ought to have settled 
the matter amongst yourselves. Instead, you publicly attack the edi- 
tors for matters that are solely the private concern of the parliamen- 
tary group. To whom, then, are the editors to look?’ Here again he 
could raise no objection. ‘In short, you have, by your ill-considered 
action, made fools of yourselves, and if anyone has come off best in 
the eyes of the public, it is the editors.’ This, too, he had to concede 
indirectly. Since I stuck to the main points and disregarded all his 
personal tittle-tattle, of which he had ample store, we concluded our 
business in ten minutes. 

That’s not the end of the matter, of course. But we now know what 
the gentlemen’s weak side is. If I were editor of the Sozialdemokrat, 
I should, from the editorial point of view, let the parliamentary group 

* 10 May 

stew in its own juice, i.e. in the Reichstag, entrust any criticism 
thereof to the members of the party, on the strength of the oft-cited 
‘free expression of opinion’, and tell Liebknecht once and for all that 
he must himself be answerable to the parliamentary group for his ar- 
ticles, thus putting an end to his double-dealing, in this respect at any 
rate. Then, provided the paper continues to be edited along the lines 
already laid down, that is enough for us. It is far more important for 
us to maintain our theoretical standpoint in the face of the rubbish 
that is printed in Germany than to criticise the parliamentary group’s 
mode of action. For after all, those who have been elected are them- 
selves doing everything in their power to enlighten the electorate as to 
the character of the elected. And for that matter, day to day events 
provide opportunity enough to make clear what our standpoint is, 
even if we leave it to the parliamentary group and party members to 
take care of the parliamentary group. It is, however, that very stand- 
point that vexes them most of all, and it is something they dare not 
publicly attack. 

The Reichstag will soon be going home. In the meantime the gen- 
tlemen — although almost all of them are secret protectionists — will 
have seen what havoc is wrought by a policy of protective tariffs.*°! 
That is but the first of many disappointments that lie in store for 
them. Not that it will change their philistine character, but it will 
probably shake their confidence and cause them to fall out over phi- 
listine questions that necessitate their declaring themselves for or 
against. Only give such types a little rope, and they'll hang them- 
selves. 

In short, our policy is, I believe, to temporise. The Anti-Socialist 
Law 3’ is working in their favour and if, while it remains in force, 
they can only find an opportunity to show themselves in their true 
colours, that is really all we need for the present. In the meantime we 
must defend every position to the utmost, particularly in the press, 
and this will not always call for active resistance. To outflank an 
enemy is also a defensive manoeuvre but one that has offensive con- 
notations. At the moment we have much against us. Bebel is ill and 
has, so it seems, lost heart. Nor shall I be able to help as much as 
I would like until I have finished with Marx’s manuscripts. So you 
and Kautsky must bear the brunt of the battle. But don’t forget the 
old rule — never to allow the actualities of the movement and of the 
struggle to make you forget the movement’s future. And that belongs 

to us. The third volume of Capital will do in all these chaps at one 
blow. 

Your 
F. E.