[London,] 7 December 1867 

Dear Frep, 

Yesterday I presented myself at the Loan Sociery for sopiy 
examination. This is more than just a formality, for if I were to 
die before September, the society would not get a rartrHinc back. I 
was afraid I would have to undress (the fate of an Englishman 
who was there with me). In the first place, I do not like such 
inocular speculation, and second precisely at this moment I still 
have a carbuncle on the left loin not far from the centre of 
propagation, as well as numerous furuncles. Fortunately, the 
fellow was so impressed with my chest that he didn’t want to know 
about anything else. I shall get the money on Monday at 12 
o'clock. 

You forgot to put in the letter from Siebel. I am sending you 
back Kugelmann, along with enclosure. Also, a letter he has written 
to me, together with enclosures. The screed from Birgers*™* to be 
put with the documents. That jackass was rightly reminded by the 
workers in Dusseldorf* that 1. in Lassalle’s time he stated he 
‘wished to take due account of conditions’, 2. he had ‘lost his 
illusions about the class strugglé, and 3. he had found in 
Schulze-Delitzsch the solution to all past and future social 
mysteries.” 

As regards the little Swabian paper,° it would be an amusing 
coup if we could hoodwink Vogt’s friend, the Swabian Mayer. It 
would be easy to contrive the thing as follows. D’abord* to begin by 
saying that whatever one may think of the drift of the book,° it is 
a credit to the ‘German spirit’, for which reason, too, it was written 
by a Prussian in exile and not in Prussia; Prussia having long 
ceased to be a country where any scholarly initiative, especially in 
the political or historical or social field, is possible or is actually to 
be found, it now being the representative of the Russian and not 
of the German spirit. In respect of the book itself, a distinction has 
to be drawn between two things, between positive developments 

a who voted against Burgers at the elections to the North German Reichstag - > See 
this volume, pp. 220-21. - © Der Beobachter - 4 First - ¢ the first volume of Capital 

(‘solid’ would be the second epithet) given by the author, and the 
tendentious conclusions he arrives at. The former are a direct 
addition to the sum of human knowledge, since actual economic 
relations are treated in an entirely new way by a materialistic 
(‘Mayer’ has a liking for this catchword, on account of Vogt) 
method. Example: 1. the development of money, 2. the way in 
which co-operation, division of labour, the machine system and the 
corresponding social combinations and relations develop ‘spon- 
taneously’, 

Now as regards the tendency of the author, another distinction 
has to be drawn. When he demonstrates that present society, 
economically considered, is pregnant with a new, higher form, he 
is only showing in the social context the same gradual process of 
evolution that Darwin has demonstrated in natural history. The 
liberal doctrine of ‘progress’ (c’est Mayer tout pur*) embraces this 
idea, and it is to his credit that he himself shows there is hidden 
progress even where modern economic relations are accompanied 
by frightening direct consequences. At the same time, owing to 
this critical approach of his, the author has, perhaps malgré lui, 
sounded the death-knell to all socialism by the book, i. e. to 
utopianism, for evermore. 

The author’s tendency to be subjective, on the other hand— 
which he was perhaps bound and obligated to assume in view of 
his party position and his past—i.e. the manner in which he 
represents to himself or to others the ultimate outcome of the 
present movement, of the present social process, bears absolutely 
no relation to its real development. If space permitted this to be 
more closely examined, it could perhaps be shown that its 
‘objective’ development refutes his own ‘subjective’ fancies. 

Whereas Mr Lassalle hurled abuse at the capitalists and flattered 
the backwoods Prussian squirearchy, Mr Marx, on the contrary, 
shows the historical ‘necessity of capitalist production and severely 
criticises the landed aristocrat who does nought but con- 
sume. Just how little he-shares the ideas of his renegade 
disciple Lassalle on Bismarck’s vocation for ushering in an 
economic mutennium he has not merely shown in his previous 
protests against ‘royal Prussian Socialism‘ but he openly repeats it 
on pp. 762, 763, where he says that the system prevailing in 
France and Prussia at present will subject the continent of Europe 
to the regime of the Russian knout, if it is not checked in good 
time.”? 

a that’s Mayer to a tee - > despite himself - © K. Marx and F. Engels, “To the Editor 
of the Social-Demokrat. 

That is my view on how to hoodwink the Swabian Mayer (who 
did after all print my preface**), and small though his beastly rag 
is, it is, nevertheless, the popular oracle of all the Federalists in 
Germany and is also read abroad. 

With regard to Liebknecht, it is indeed a disgrace that with the 
numerous petty provincial papers he has at his command,°** he 
did not spontanément* send in short notices to them—it would not 
have required of him any of the study which is so contrary to his 
nature. Mr Schweitzer et Co. understand this better, as you can 
see from the enclosed Social-Demokrat.*°*’ (Kugelmann sent it me.) 
Yesterday I sent Guido Weiss of the Zukunft (this just between 
ourselves) some juxtaposed texts,” on one side von Hofstetten’s 
bowdlerised plagiarisms, on the other the original passages from 
my book. I wrote to him at the same time that this must be 
printed not in my name but as though emanating from the Zukunft 
(or, if that is not feasible, then as though from a Zukunft-reader in 
Berlin). If Weiss takes this (and I think he will), then not merely 
will the attention of the Berlin workers have been drawn to the 
book through the quotation of passages which are of direct 
interest to them, but an extremely useful polemic will have been 
initiated, and Schweitzer’ plan to ignore the book and exploit its 
contents will have been dished. Marvellous how these fellows think 
they can go on with Lassalle’s plan.‘ What could be more naive 
than the manner in which von Hofstetten and Citizen Geib have 
joined together at the general meeting of the General Association 
of German Workers in savaging the section I wrote on the 
‘working day’™*? 

Salut. 

Your 
K. Marx 

My comptiments To Mrs Burns. I have taken an extraordinary liking 
to Schorlemmer’s compendium.‘