Mr. Lothar Bucher has published a “declaration” in the
Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung of June 21,° which in the first
instance establishes the unpleasant circumstance that my letter to
The Daily News was reprinted by the National-Liberal and
Party-of-Progress newspapers.” Mr. Bucher declares that
3,000 lines would be required in order to straighten out the
distortions I had compressed together. Thirty lines are more than
sufficient to establish once and for all the truth of Bucher’s
“corrections” and “supplementary statements”.

The letter in which Mr. Bucher tries to bring me to heel for the
Staats-Anzeiger is dated October 8, 1865, and thus originates from
the period of the conflict between the Prussian liberal and
Party-of-Progress bourgeoisie and Mr. von Bismarck. The letter
says, amongst other things:

“With regard to the content, it goes without saying that you only follow your
scientific conviction; however, consideration for the readers— haute finance-—not

the editorial office, will make it advisable that you allow the innermost core to shine
through only for those properly versed in these matters.”

By contrast, Mr. Bucher’s “correction” says that he

“asked Mr. Marx if he would supply the articles requested, in which it was
important for the treatment to be objective. There is not a word in my letter

pertaining to Mr. Marx’s ‘own scientific standpoint”.

a A. L. Bucher [Declaration concerning Karl Marx’s letter in The Daily News],
Berlin, den 20. Juni, Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 145, June 21, 1878.— Ed.

b Berliner Freie Presse, No. 138, June 16 and Vossische Zeitung, No. 139,
June 16, 1878.— Ed

¢ Finance aristocracy.— Ed.

Reply to Bucher’s “Declaration” 233

Further, the same letter says:

“The Staats-Anzeiger requires a monthly report on the movements in the money
market (and, of course, also in the commodity market, inasmuch as the two are
inseparable). I was asked if I could not perhaps recommend someone, and replied
that no one would do it better than you. I have consequently been asked to contact

be

you.

According to his own unambiguous’ words therefore,
Mr. Bucher began his “correspondence” with me at the request of
someone or other. By contrast, his “correction” asserts:

“No one, not even the editor of the Staats-Anzeiger,2 knew anything of this
correspondence or learned anything about it.”

So much on Mr. Bucher’s method of making corrections. And
now a sample of his method when it comes to making
supplementary statements!

My letter to The Daily News mentions only Mr. Bucher’s “naive”
inquiry of me, but refrains from mentioning a word about my
answer to him. He, however, in his anxiety to make the “curious
occurrence” appear in a trivial light, has to “supplement” me and
therefore invents the following:

“Mr. Marx replied that he would not write for a reactionary newspaper.”
How am I to answer with such banalities a letter whose

“innermost core” doesn’t “only” shine through, but flashes
through blindingly in the following closing passage:
“Progress” (he means the liberal or Party-of-Progress bourgeoisie) “will cast its

skin many times before it dies; and therefore anyone who wishes to have an effect
within the state in his lifetime, must rally round the government.”

Karl Marx
London, June 27