Manchester, 22 October 1868 

Dear Moor, 

The littl Russian Ermen,’? whose fate you can see from the 
enclosed paper, has, on the pretext that he must now settle down, 
been living in our office for a week now, and has only emerged 
rather drunk to visit his betrothed. Since the whole office was 
turned into a pub, no sort of work could be done, and that is why 
I have only now got around to writing to you. 

I have not yet been able to read the Congress '™ reports in the 
Social-Demokrat, which are also very boring.” Apart from this, 
Schweitzer shows that he is very serious about his sect. Not only 
has the General Association of German Workers been reformed, 
with its headquarters in Berlin' and with new statutes,° the only 
alterations having been made, compared to the old statutes, with 
an eye to the Law on Association,” but every detail shows that in 
the new trades unions GAGW aims to play (but openly) the same 
role as our old secret league' did in the legal associations. The 
TRADES UNIONS are Only to form an exoteric party of the Lassallean 
church of sole salvation, but only the latter remains the one of sole 
salvation. If Eichhoff forms a separate association in Berlin,” he 
is promised gracious toleration on the condition that his associa- 
tion takes a ‘friendly’ attitude towards GAGW. But Schweitzer and 
his Association remain “the party”, and the others may come and 
join it; or else remain heretics and _dissenters. 

Apart from this, the fellow has a much clearer grasp than all the 
others of the general] political situation and a much clearer attitude 
to the other parties; and he is cleverer in his presentation than all the 
others. He calls ‘all old parties facing us, one single reactionary 
mass, and their differences are scarcely of any significance for us’. 
He recognises that 1866 and its results are ruining the system of 
petty principalities, undermining the principle of legitimacy, 
shaking reaction, and have set the people in motion, but he 
has—now—also come out against the other results, the burden of 

4 

a Anton Ermen - > Der Social-Demokrat, Nos. 114, 115, 116 and 117 (with supple- 
ments); 30 September, 2, 4, 7 October 1868, Allgemeiner deutscher Arbeiter- 
Congress. - © ‘Statut. Geschafts-Reglement’, Social-Demokrat, No. 119, 11 October 1868. 

taxes, etc., and his attitude to Bismarck is more ‘correct’, as the 
Berliners say, than e.g. Liebknecht’s is, with regard to the 
ex-princes. You will have seen that he cites the Elector of Hesse* 
as a historical authority—on the all-too-familiar subjects—and in 
his last number he allows a true Hanoverian to strike up a Guelphic 
whimpering.’ On this last point, couldn’t you for once tell Wilhelm 
what is what? It is really asking a lot to expect us to support a 
paper in which he allows such dirty tricks. 

Have at least a part of the anti-Proudhons sent to London; 
these few remaining copies cannot be replaced. 1 myself have none. 
Vieweg should be asked to account for the copies sold since 
1865. It is, in addition, certainly a good thing that you are following 
the matter up, even though only now. There is always the possibility 
that something may still come out of it. 

The business with the Westminster is very good. Do not allow 
time to slip by; the article should appear in the January issue; so 
send me the stuff as soon as possible, so I may do my part. It is 
very good that these fellows would not use a simple presentation 
of a new scientific development without the phraseology of their 
‘essays’, which make the matter not only less clear, but also drier. I 
would, however, also ask Mr Beesly how many printed sheets 
would be available. The stuff I sent you would have made | sheet 
in the Fortnightly, but about 1'/) in the Westminster. According to 
space—and since only one article is possible here—we should 
consider whether and which parts of the book should be left out 
completely—for instance I do not believe it will be possible to 
include the chapter on accumulation?” without cutting down the 
space for the main subject too much. 

I’ve read Darwin’s first volume on pomestication.© Only details 
are new, and then not much of importance. 

With best greetings. 

Your 
F. E.