Manchester, 30 September 1868 

Dear Moor, 

Once you have entered into contact with Schweitzer in your 
capacity as Secretary ror Germany,” I do not see how you could do 
anything except observe complete neutrality between him and 
Wilhelmchen—at least in official conduct. As far as I know, the 
Lassalleans accepted your programme in Hamburg,’* so more 
cannot be expected. One must simply leave it to Schweitzer to 
destroy himself; if we ourselves.were in Germany, things would be 
different. 

Even from the previous Social-Demokrat I saw that he wanted to 
transfer his ‘tight organisation’ to the Traprs unions; now we have 
to wait and see whether he succeeds, which I do not believe. 
TRADES BUSINESS is Money business, and there dictatorship ends of 
itself. And the substitution won’t work as easily as the bonhomme 
believes. 

The Counc. can and may only take sides when it is itself 
attacked directly or indirectly, or when the principles of the 

a F. Engels, ‘On the Dissolution of the Lassallean Workers’ Association’. - > See this 
volume, p. 76. - © Engels presumably means the article ‘Zum Allgemeinen deutschen 
Arbeiter-Congress. Berlin, 24. September’ in Der Social-Demokrat, No. 112, 25 
September 1868. - 4 good man 

Association are infringed. This is precisely how it acted at the time 
with regard to the Parisians.’ 

Moreover, what is Wilhelmchen’s organisation’ so far, what 
has been the effect of the Nuremberg decision? '* Have societies 
really affiliated, paid subscriptions, etc.? I know nothing about it. 
And what does Wilhelm want to do in relation to Schweitzer’s 
STRIKE Organisation?'™ What else does he want to organise? All this 
is still very unclear to me. 

Furthermore: What practical effect would it have if you and the 
General Council issued a declaration against the Lassalleans? I 
believe very little, at most the sect as such would stick together the 
more firmly. And what can they be reproached with? That they do 
not follow W. Liebknecht? As long as the fellows have trust in 
Schweitzer, and as long as Liebknecht and Schweitzer squabble, all 
sermonising about unity is sheer folly. 

To attack the Lassalle stuff in literary form is quite another 
matter. But to proscribe him, so to speak, would only consolidate a 
sect which is otherwise in disintegration. 

I suggest you also find occasion to give Schweitzer a piece of 
your mind concerning his dictatorial ambitions, if you write to him 
at all. After all, he wanted to send you the drafts first.’ 

Apropos. The letter from Eichhoff'” was not enclosed. 

Vogt.’ I could not write to you about this since Schorlemmer was 
in the Lakes, and I myself naturally asked no questions. So far, I only 
heard yesterday that the lecture did not cover the expenses, that 
Vogt, though he has always given the same lecture for the past year, 
nevertheless spoke very stumblingly and sloppily, often repeated 
himself, etc. After the lecture some people sat with him in the dining 
room, where the good Vogt was, however, so pressed with questions 
about the monkey trial by the Unitarian preacher Steinthal (brother 
of Weerth’s*), by Kalisch, an old boring language teacher, and by yet 
another fellow, that he was absolutely overwhelmed and sneaked off 
at the first opportunity. He is said to have felt altogether very uneasy 
and uncomfortable here, while in Bradford he was very féted and 
buoyant. He made a few remarks to Davisson which caused the latter 
to note afterwards that he must be quite a nasty fellow, capable of 
anything. I shall be hearing more. In any case, he will not come here 
again. 

9 

Your 
F. E. 

a The brother of Weerth’s principal is meant.