MARX TO ENGELS?” 

London, 14 March 1869 

Dear Frep, 

From the enclosed letter from Meissner you can see how things 
look with the Louis Bonaparte.* Since Meissner told me directly 
(personally) that he only publishes pamphlets occasionally, now 
and then, in order to oblige, something of which you need not be 
aware, I would prefer you to write to him direct about the Peasant 
War. If nothing emerges, I shall write to Eichhoff?, with whom I 
maintain ‘international’ relations. 

Liebknecht has the gift of gathering the stupidest people in 
Germany around him. Exempli causa the author of ‘Die demok- 
ratischen Ziele und die deutschen Arbeiter’‘. This stuff can only 
be read, even to oneself, in south German patois. This dun- 
derhead requests the workers to rid him of Bismarck and then 
promises to provide them with ‘full freedom of movement’ and other 
socialist achievements! Horreur! 4 

The man from Zukunft* is infinitely more cunning and sharp in 
the north German way. But with him, too, the uesHor is that the 
workers should pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the 

4 Wilhelm Eichhoff - > for example -‘ ‘Die demokratischen Ziele und die 
deutschen Arbeiter’, Demokratisches Wochenblait, Nos. 34, 36, 47 and 48; 22 August, 
5 September, 21 and 28 November 1868, No. 10, 6 March 1869. - 4 ghastly - 
€ ‘Die Gewerksgenossenschaften’, Die Zukunft, Nos. 32, 35, 37, 40 and 47; 7, 11, 
13, 17 and 25 February 1869 (see also this volume, p. 230). 

democratic gentlemen and should not, for the time being, indulge 
in such pursuits as trades unions. If these gentlemen are such 
hot-headed friends of direct revolutionary action, why don’t they set 
the example, instead of writing careful and reserved articles for 
Zukunft! Do they expect such stuff to awaken revolutionary 
passion? That won’t catch anybody! 

The reply to the Genevans* has been sent off. In the French 
text I kept the tone still icier and passablement ironique.” Luckily, 
this was not noticed by the English, who naturally only know my 
English translation. 

Apart from the official communication?” about which I told 
you, the gentlemen also sent a 4-page private letter to Eccarius, 
according to which a direct breach had only been avoided thanks to 
the efforts of Becker, Bakunin, and Perret, author of the 
document. Their ‘revolutionary’ programme had had more effect 
in some weeks in Italy, Spain, etc., than that of the International 
Working Men’s Association had in years. If we should reject their 
‘revolutionary programme’, we would [produce] a_ separation 
between the countries with a ‘revolutionary’ workers’ movement (these 
are listed as France, where they have all of 2 correspondents, 
Switzerland(!), Italy—where the workers, apart from those who 
belong to us, are simply a tail to Mazzini—and Spain, where there 
are more clerics than workers) and those with a more gradual 
development of the working class (viz., England, Germany, the 
United States and Belgium). Thus, a separation between the 
volcanic and plutonic workers’ movement on the one hand, and 
the aqueous movement on the other. 

That the Swiss should represent the revolutionary type is really 
amusing. 

Old Becker must have become very stupid if he really believes 
that Bakunin has invented a ‘programme’. 

Your 
K. M.