Liebknecht asked Hirsch whether he would undertake to edit 
the party organ that was about to be founded in Zurich. Hirsch 
sought information as to the financing of the paper: what funds 
were available and who was providing them? Firstly, so as to know 
whether the paper might not peter out within a few months. 
Secondly, to ascertain who held the purse-strings, thus having the 
final say as to the paper’s stance. Liebknecht’s reply, telling Hirsch 
that “everything is in order; you will be getting further 
information from Zurich” (Liebknecht to Hirsch, July 28), didn’t 
arrive.”'* But what did reach Hirsch from Zurich was a letter from 

a The original erroneously has: “August 29”.— Ed. 

Bernstein (July 24) in which Bernstein informed him that “ We? 
are being entrusted with the production and supervision (of the 
paper)’. A discussion had taken place “between Viereck, Singer 
and ourselves” during which it was suggested 

“that your position might be rendered somewhat difficult by the differences of 
opinion which you, as a Laterne man, have had with individual comrades, though I 
myself do not consider this objection carries much weight”. 

Not a word about the financing. 

Hirsch answered by return on July 26, enquiring about. the 
paper’s material circumstances. Which comrades had undertaken 
to cover the deficit? Up to what amount and for how long?—The 
question of the editor’s salary didn’t enter into this at all; Hirsch 
merely wanted to know whether “means have been secured to 
ensure the paper’s continued existence for at least a year”. 

On July 31, Bernstein replied, saying that any deficit there 
might be would be covered by voluntary contributions of which 
some (!) had already been subscribed. Hirsch’s remarks about the 
stance he thought the paper should adopt, of which more below, 
elicited deprecating remarks and injunctions: 

“It is all the more necessary for the supervisory committee5!5 to insist on it in that 
it, in turn, is subject to control, i.e. is responsible. On these points, therefore, you 
must come to an understanding with the supervisory committee.” 

They asked him to reply by return, preferably by telegraph. 

Hence, instead of getting a reply to his justified questions, 
Hirsch was informed that he was to be editor under a supervisory 
committee based in Zurich, with views differing very materially 
from his own and members of whose names he wasn’t even 
informed! 

Hirsch, quite justifiably outraged by this treatment, chose rather 
to come to an understanding with the Leipzigers. His letter of 
August 2 to Liebknecht must be known to you, since Hirsch 
expressly demanded that it be shown to you and Viereck. Hirsch is 
even willing to submit to a supervisory committee in Zurich, 
inasmuch as the latter is to put its comments to the editor in 
writing and these may be referred for decision to the controlling 
committee in Leipzig.*! 

In-the meantime Liebknecht had written to Hirsch on July 28: 

“Of course finance is available for the undertaking, seeing that it is backed by 
the entire party+(INCLUSIVE) Héchberg. But ’'m not concerned with the details.” 

Nor does Liebknecht’s next letter contain anything about the 
financing—only an assurance that the Zurich committee is not an 

a Eduard Bernstein, Karl Héchberg and Karl August Schramm.— Ed. 

A page of the “Circular Letter to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilhelm 
Bracke and Others” by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels 

Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke and Others 257 

editorial committee, but is only to be entrusted with administration 
and the financial side. As late as August 14, Liebknecht wrote to 
me along the same lines, and asked that we persuade Hirsch to 
accept. You yourself, as late as August 20 were still so little 
acquainted with the actual circumstances that you wrote to me 
saying: 

“He” (Ho6chberg) “has no more say in the editing of the paper than any other 
well-known member of the party.” 

Finally, Hirsch received a letter from Viereck, dated August 11, 
containing the admission that 

“the 3 men domiciled in Zurich are to, qua editorial committee, apply themselves 
to founding the paper and, subject to the agreement of the three Leipzigers, select 
an editor ... so far as I recall, the resolutions that were sent them also asserted that 
the (Zurich) founding committee mentioned under 2., was to assume both political 
and financial responsibility towards the party.... From this state of affairs it follows, 
or so it seems to me, that ... there can be no question of anyone assuming the 
editorship without the concurrence of the 3 men domiciled in Zurich and entrusted 
with the founding by the party”. 

Here at last was something definite, at least, for Hirsch to go on, if 
only in regard to the position of the editor vis-a-vis the Zurichers. 
They were an _ editorial committee; they were also politically 
responsible; without their concurrence no one could assume the 
editorship. In short, Hirsch was simply instructed to come to an 
understanding with three men in Zurich whose names had still not 
been disclosed to him. 

But to make the confusion worse, Liebknecht added a postscript 
to Viereck’s letter: 

“Singer from Berlin was here just now and informed us that the supervisory 
committee in Zurich is not, as Viereck imagines, an editorial committee, but 
essentially an administrative committee which is financially responsible to the party, 
i.e. to ourselves, for the paper; of course, its members also have the right and the 
duty to discuss the editing with you (a right and a duty of which, by the way, every 
member is possessed); they are not empowered to place you under their 
guardianship.” 

The Zurich trio and one member of the Leipzig committee—the 
only one* present at the discussions—insist that Hirsch is to be 
subject to official direction by Zurich, while another Leipzig 
member” contests this outright. And yet Hirsch is to make up his 
mind before these gentlemen are agreed amongst themselves! The 
fact that Hirsch was entitled to acquaint himself with the 
resolutions they had adopted and which embodied the conditions 
with which he was expected to comply, was entirely overlooked, 

a Louis Viereck.— Ed. 
b Wilhelm Liebknecht.— Ed. 

the more so since it never seems to have occurred to the 
Leipzigers that they themselves should become properly acquainted 
with those resolutions. How, otherwise, can the above-mentioned 
inconsistency be accounted for? 

If the Leipzigers were unable to agree upon the powers vested 
in the Zurich people, the latter harboured no doubts on this score. 

Schramm to Hirsch, August 14: 

“Had you not written at one time that in a similar case” (as that of Kayser), 
“you would do just as you had done before, thus holding out the prospect of a 
similar modus operandi,317 we would not be wasting words on the subject. As it is, 

however, and in view of that statement of yours, we must reserve the right to have 
the casting vote as to what articles the new paper should take.” 

The letter to Bernstein in which Hirsch was alleged to have said 
this was dated July 26, long after the conference in Zurich at 
which the Zurich trio’s powers were laid down. But so much were 
those in Zurich already revelling in the sense of their own 
bureaucratic authority that, in reply to this subsequent letter of 
Hirsch’s, they were already laying claim to new powers, namely the 
decision as to what articles should be included. The editorial 
committee was already a censorship committee. 

Not until Hochberg arrived in Paris did Hirsch learn from him 
the names of the members of the two committees.*” 

If, then, discussions with Hirsch broke down, what was the 
cause? 

1. The obstinate refusal, on the part of both Leipzig and Zurich, 
to give him any hard and fast information about the paper’s 
financial basis and hence the likelihood of keeping it afloat, if only 
for a year. Not until he was over here did he learn from me 
(following your communication to me’) how much had been 
subscribed. Hence, the only conclusion it was really possible to 
draw from previous communications (the party + Héchberg) was 
either that the paper was already being largely financed by 
Hochberg or that it would soon be entirely dependent on his 
subsidies. And this latter eventuality is still far from being 
excluded. The sum of—if I read it right—800 marks is precisely 
the same (40 pounds sterling) as had to be contributed by the local 
association, Freiheit,'? during the first half year. 

2. Liebknecht’s repeated assurances, which have since proved 
totally erroneous, that Zurich was to have no official control 
whatever over the editorship, and the resulting comedy of errors; 

3. The certainty finally established that not only were the Zurich 

a See this volume, pp. 260-61.— Ed. 
b This refers to August Bebel’s letter to Engels of August 20, 1879.— Ed. 

Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke and Others 259 

people to control the editing, they were actually to censor it, and 
that the only role that would redound upon him, Hirsch, would be 
that of the man of straw. . 

His refusal at that juncture is something we cannot but approve. 
The Leipzig committee, or so we hear from Héchberg,”’ has 
received reinforcements in the shape of two more who do not live 
in the place* and hence that committee can intervene quickly only 
if the three Leipzigers are agreed. As a result, the real centre of 
gravity has altogether shifted to Zurich, and Hirsch or, for that 
matter, any true revolutionary and proletarian-minded editor, 
would not have been able to work with the people there for any 
length of time. More about this later. 

II. THE PROPOSED STANCE OF THE PAPER 

As early as July 24 Bernstein had informed Hirsch that the 
differences he, as a Laterne man, had had with individual comrades 
would render his position more difficult. 

Hirsch replied” that in his view the paper’s stance would in 
general have to be the same as that of the Laterne, i.e. such as to 
avoid prosecution in Switzerland and not cause undue alarm in 
Germany. He inquired who those comrades might be and 
continued: 

“I know of only one and can promise you that in a similar case of undisciplined 
conduct I should deal with him in exactly the same way.” 

Whereupon Bernstein, conscious of his newly acquired dignity 
as official censor, replied: 

“Now as regards the paper’s stance, it is the view of the supervisory committee 
that the Laterne should not serve as a model; in our view the paper should be less 
taken up with political radicalism, but rather adopt a line that is socialist on 
principle. Instances such as the attack upon Kayser, which was frowned on by all 
comrades without exception” (!), “must under all circumstances be avoided.” ¢ 

And so on and so forth. Liebknecht called the attack on Kayser 
‘a bloomer”, and so dangerous did it seem to Schramm that he 
immediately imposed censorship on Hirsch.* 

Hirsch again wrote to Hochberg, saying that a case such as that 
of Kayser 

“could not occur should an official party organ exist, whose lucid expositions 
and friendly hints could not be so presumptuously brushed aside by a deputy”. 

@ Ignaz Auer and Karl Grillenberger.— Ed. 

b On July 26, 1879.— Ed. 

¢ Eduard Bernstein’s letter to Carl Hirsch of July 31, 1879.— Ed. 
d See this volume, p. 258.— Ed. 

19* 

Viereck also wrote, saying that what was required of the new 
paper was that it adopt a 

“dispassionate attitude and, in so far as possible, bury the hatchet’; it ought not 
to be an “enlarged version of the Laterne” and “the most Bernstein can be 
reproached with is that he holds views that are too moderate, if reproach it be at a 
time when we cannot, after all, crowd on sail”. 

Well, now, what is this Kayser case, this unpardonable crime 
Hirsch is supposed to have committed? In the Reichstag, Kayser 
spoke in favour of and voted for protective tariffs, the only one of 
the Social-Democratic deputies to do so. Hirsch accused him of 
having infringed party discipline, in that Kayser 

1. voted for indirect taxation, the abolition of which is expressly 
demanded by the party programme’; 

2. voted Bismarck funds, thus infringing the first and funda- 
mental rule of our party tactics: not a farthing for this 
government. 

Hirsch is undeniably right on both counts. And, after Kayser 
had spurned, on the one hand, the party programme to which the 
deputies, by their resolution in congress, had in effect been 
solemnly pledged and, on the other hand, the most imperative 
and all-important rule of party tactics, after he had voted 
Bismarck funds, out of gratitude for the Anti-Socialist Law,*' Hirsch 
was again perfectly justified in our opinion in handling him as 
roughly as he did. 

We have never understood how it was that this attack upon 
Kayser could have aroused such a furore in Germany. I am now 
told by Hochberg that it was the “faction” which gave Kayser 
permission to act as he did, and Kayser is held to be covered by 
that permission. 

If such is the case, then it is really too bad. In the first place, 
Hirsch could have known no more than the rest of the world 
about this secret resolution.” Then, again, the discredit incurred by 
the party, for which previously Kayser alone could have been 
blamed, is all the greater for this affair, as is Hirsch’s merit in 
having brought to light in public and for all the world to see 
Kayser’s preposterous phraseology and his even more preposter- 
ous vote, thus saving-the honour of the party. Or has German 

a See “Programm der sozialistischen Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands”, Der Volks- 
staat, No. 59, May 28, 1875.— Ed. 

b Deleted in the manuscript: “Even admitting that two or three other 
Social-Democratic deputies (for it is unlikely that any more were there) had allowed 
themselves to be misled into permitting Kayser to recite his inanities in front of all 
and sundry, and vote Bismarck funds, it was their duty publicly to assume 
responsibility for this and then wait and see what Hirsch would say.” — Ed. 

Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke and Others 261 

Social-Democracy indeed been infected with the parliamentary 
disease, believing that, with the popular vote, the Holy Ghost is 
poured upon those elected, that meetings of the faction are 
transformed into infallible councils and factional resolutions into 
sacrosanct dogma? 

Admittedly, a bloomer has been made—not by Hirsch, however, 
but by the deputies who gave Kayser the protection of their 
resolution. And if those upon whom, above all others, it is 
incumbent to see that party discipline is maintained, themselves so 
glaringly infringe that party discipline by a resolution of this kind, 
then so much the worse. But it is even worse still if they have the 
audacity to believe that it was not Kayser, by his speech and vote, 
or the other deputies by their resolution, who infringed party 
discipline, but Hirsch, inasmuch as he attacked Kayser despite that 
resolution about which, moreover, he knew nothing. 

For the rest, there can be no doubt that the policy the party had 
adopted towards the question of protective tariffs was as muddled 
and vacillating as it has always been in regard to virtually all 
economic questions—e.g. state railways**—when they have be- 
come a practical issue. The reason for this is that the party organs, 
notably Vorwdrts, rather than subject such questions to a thorough 
discussion, have preferred to apply themselves to the construction 
of the future social order. When, subsequent to the Anti-Socialist 
Law, the question of protective tariffs suddenly became a live 
issue, views on the subject diverged, assuming a wide variety of 
nuances, and there was absolutely no one to hand possessing the 
qualification that would have enabled him to form a lucid and 
accurate opinion, namely a knowledge of conditions in German 
industry and the latter’s position in the world market. Again, as 
was bound to happen, protectionist tendencies cropped up here 
and there amongst the electorate, tendencies which, it was felt, 
ought also to be taken into consideration. The only possible way 
out of the confusion would have been to take a purely political 
view of the question (as was done in the Laterne), but this was not 
pursued with any determination. Thus it was inevitable that in this 
debate, the party acted for the first time in a hesitant, uncertain 
and muddled way and ended up by thoroughly discrediting itself 
through the person of and in company with Kayser. 

The attack on Kayser is now being used as a pretext to 
admonish Hirsch, in tones ranging through the whole gamut, to 
the effect that the new paper must on no account repeat the 
excesses of the Laterne, must be less taken up with political 
radicalism and rather adopt a line that is dispassionate and 

socialist on principle. And this from Viereck no less than from 
Bernstein who, precisely because he is too moderate, appears to 
the former to be the right man, seeing that just now we cannot, 
after all, crowd on sail. 

But why go abroad at all, unless one intends to crowd on sail? 
Abroad, there’s nothing to prevent this being done. In Switzerland 
there are no German press, combination and penal laws. Hence, 
not only can one say things there, which could not, even before 
the Anti-Socialist Law, be said at home because of the ordinary 
German laws, but one is actually duty-bound to do so. For here one 
is under the eyes, not of Germany alone, but of Europe and it is 
one’s duty, insofar as the Swiss laws allow, openly to proclaim for 
Europe’s benefit the methods and aims of the German party. 
Anyone in Switzerland seeking to abide by the German laws would 
only prove that he is deserving of those German laws and that he 
has, in effect, nothing to say save what he was allowed to say in 
Germany before the Exceptional Law. Nor should any account be 
taken of the possibility that the editors might be temporarily 
deprived of the chance to return to Germany. Anyone who is not 
prepared to run that risk is not fit to occupy so exposed and 
honourable a post. 

More. If the German party was ostracised by the Exceptional 
Law, this was precisely because it was the only serious opposition 
party in Germany. If, in an organ published abroad, it renders 
thanks to Bismarck by abandoning its role as the only serious 
opposition party, by behaving in a nice, docile manner and 
adopting a dispassionate stance when kicked, it only proves that it 
deserved to be kicked. Of all the German émigré papers that have 
appeared abroad since 1830, the Laterne is undoubtedly one of the 
most moderate. If, however, even the Laterne was too insolent— 
then the new organ could not but compromise the party in the 
eyes of sympathisers in non-German countries. 

Ill. THE MANIFESTO OF THE ZURICH TRIO 

In the meantime we have received Hdéchberg’s Jahrbuch, 
containing an article, “Rickblicke auf die sozialistische Bewegung 
in Deutschland,” * which, as Héchberg himself informed me, was 
actually written by the three members of the Zurich committee.” 

a See this volume, p. 253. Jahrbuch für Socialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik, Jg. 1, 1. 
Halfte, Zurich-Oberstrass, 1879, pp. 75-96. The parentheses, abridgements and italics 
in the following quotations are by Engels.— Ed. 

b Hochberg, Bernstein and Schramm.— Ed. 

Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke and Others 263 

Here we have their authentic critique of the movement up till 
now, and hence their authentic programme for the new paper’s 
stance insofar as this is dependent on aoe 

At the very start we read: 

“The movement, regarded by Lassalle as an eminently political one, to which he 
sought to rally not only the workers but all honest democrats, and in the van of 
which were to march the independent representatives of science and all men imbued 
with a true love of mankind, was trivialised under the chairmanship of J. B. von 
Schweitzer into a one-sided struggle of the industrial workers to promote their own 
interests.” 3 

I shall not inquire whether and to what extent this is historically 
true. The specific charge against Schweitzer is that Schweitzer 
trivialised Lassalleanism, here regarded as a bourgeois democratic- 
philanthropic movement, into a one-sided struggle of the industri- 
al workers to promote their own interests—trivialised it by 
emphasising its character as a class struggle of industrial workers 
against the bourgeoisie.” He is further charged with having 

“repudiated bourgeois democracy”. But has bourgeois democracy 
any business to be in the Social-Democratic Party at all? If it 
consists of “honest men”, it surely cannot wish to join, and if it 
nevertheless wishes to join, this can only be for the purpose of 
stirring up trouble. 

The Lassallean party “chose to present itself in a most one-sided 
manner as a workers’ party”. The gentlemen who wrote those 

a Jahrbuch für Socialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik, p. 84.— Ed. 

b These two sentences were substituted by the authors for the collowing 4 passage 
deleted in the manuscript: “Schweitzer was a great blackguard, but very talented 
intellectually. His particular merit consisted in his having broken free of the original, 
narrow Lassalleanism with its limited panacea of state aid... Whatever wrong he may 
have done out of corrupt motives and however much, too, he may have clung to the 
Lassallean panacea of state aid in order to preserve his domination, he nevertheless 
had the merit of having broken free of the original, narrow Lassalleanism, of having 
broadened the party’s economic horizons and thus paved the way for its subsequent 
merger with the German party as a whole. The class struggle between proletariat and 
bourgeoisie, that pivot of all revolutionary socialism, had already been advocated by 
Lassalle. If Schweitzer stressed this point even more strongly it was, at any rate, a step 
forward so far as the cause was concerned, however much of a pretext he may thus 
have afforded dangerous individuals for calling his dictatorship in question. It may 
rightly be said that he turned Lassalleanism into a one-sided struggle of the industrial 
workers to promote their own interests. But one-sided only in the sense that, for 
reasons that were politically corrupt, he wished to have nothing to do with the farm 
workers’ struggle to promote their own interests vis-a-vis the big landowners. It is not 
that with which he is reproached here; rather the ‘trivialisation’ consists in his 
emphasising its character as a class struggle of industrial workers against the 
bourgeoisie.” — Ed. 

© Jahrbuch ftir Socialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik, p. 84.— Ed. 

d Ibid., p. 85.— Ed. 

words are themselves members of a party which presents itself in 
the most one-sided manner as a workers’ party, and now hold 
office in the same. Here we have a complete incompatibility. If 
they think as they write, they ought to leave the party or at least 
resign from office. If they don’t, it is tantamount to admitting that 
they intend to use their official position to combat the party’s 
proletarian character. Hence the party is betraying itself if it allows 
them to remain in office. 

Thus, in the view of these gentlemen, the Social-Democratic 
Party ought not to be a one-sided workers’ party but a many-sided 
party of “all men imbued with a true love of mankind”. This it is 
to prove, above all, by divesting itself of crude proletarian passions 
and applying itself, under the direction of educated philanthropic 
bourgeois, “to the formation of good taste” and “the acquisition 
of good manners” (p. 85). After which the “seedy appearance” of 
some of the leaders would give way to a respectable “bourgeois 
appearance”.* (As though the outwardly seedy appearance of 
those referred to here were not the least that could be held against 
them!) After which, too, 

“there will be an influx of supporters from the ranks of the educated and 
propertied classes. These, however, must first be won over if the ... agitation engaged 
in is to have perceptible results...”. German socialism has laid “too much stress on 
winning over the masses, thus omitting to prosecute vigorous” (!)“propaganda 
amongst the so-called upper strata of society”. For “the party still lacks men who 
are fit to represent it in the Reichstag”. It is, however, “desirable and necessary to 
entrust the mandates to men who have had the time and the opportunity to 
become thoroughly conversant with the relevant material. Only rarely and in 
exceptional cases does ... the simple working man and small master craftsman have 
sufficient leisure for the purpose’’.> 

Therefore elect bourgeois! 

In short, the working class is incapable of emancipating itself by 
its own efforts. In order to do so it must place itself under the 
direction of ‘educated and propertied” bourgeois who alone have 
“the time and the opportunity” to become conversant with what is 
good for the workers. And, secondly, the bourgeois are not to be 
combatted—not on your life—but won over by vigorous prop- 
aganda. 

If, however, you wish to win over the upper strata of society, or 
at least their well-intentioned elements, you mustn’t frighten 
them—not on your life. And here the Zurich trio believe they have 
made a reassuring discovery: 

a Jahrbuch für Socialwissenschaft und Socialpalitik, p. 86.— Ed. 
b Ibid., pp. 87-89.— Ed. 

Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke and Others 265 

“Now, at the very time it is oppressed by the Anti-Socialist Law, the party is 
showing that it does not wish to pursue the path of forcible, bloody revolution, but 
rather is determined ... to tread the path of legality, i.e. of reform.” 

If, therefore, the 5-600,000 Social-Democratic voters, ?/19 to 1/s 
of the total electorate—and dispersed, what is more, over the 
length and breadth of the country—have sense enough not to 
beat their heads against a wall and attempt a “‘bloody revolution” 
with the odds at one to ten, this is supposed to prove that they 
will, for all time, continue to deny themselves all chance of 
exploiting some violent upheaval abroad, a sudden wave of 
revolutionary fervour engendered thereby, or even a people’s 
victory won in a clash arising therefrom! Should Berlin ever be so 
uneducated as to stage another March 18,°” it would behove the 
Social-Democrats not to take part in the fighting as “louts besotted 
with barricades” (p. 88) but rather to “tread the path of legality”, 
to placate, to clear away the barricades and, if necessary, march 
with the glorious army against the one-sided, crude, uneducated 
masses. Or if the gentlemen insist that that’s not what they meant, 
then what did they mean? 

But there’s better in store. 

“Hence, the more calm, sober and considered it (the Party) shows itself to be in 
its criticism of existing circumstances and its proposals to change the same, the less 
likelihood is there of a repetition of the present successful move” (introduction of the 

Anti-Socialist Law) “by means of which conscious reaction has scared the bourgeoisie 
out of their wits by holding up the red spectre” (p. 88). 

In order to relieve the bourgeoisie of the last trace of anxiety, it 
is to be shown clearly and convincingly that the red spectre really is 
just a spectre and doesn’t exist. But what is the secret of the red 
spectre, if not the bourgeoisie’s fear of the inevitable life-and- 
death struggle between itself and the proletariat, fear of the 
unavoidable outcome of the modern class struggle? Just abolish 
the class struggle, and the bourgeoisie and “all independent 
persons” will “not hesitate to go hand in hand with the 
proletarians”!” In which case the ones to be hoodwinked would be 
those self-same proletarians. 

Let the party, therefore, prove, by its humble and subdued 
demeanour, that it has renounced once and for all the “improp- 
rieties and excesses” © which gave rise to the Anti-Socialist Law. If 
it voluntarily undertakes to remain wholly within the bounds of 
the Anti-Socialist Law, Bismarck and the bourgeoisie will, no 

a Jahrbuch für Socialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik, pp. 87-88.— Ed. 
b Ibid., p. 88.— Ed. 
¢ Ibid., p. 87.— Ed. 

doubt, oblige by rescinding what would then be a redundant law! 

“Let no one misunderstand us”; we don’t want “to relinquish our party and our 
programme,? but in our opinion we shall have enough to do for years to come if 
we concentrate our whole strength, our entire energies, on the attainment of 
certain immediate objectives which must in any case be won before there can be 

Then, too, the bourgeois, petty-bourgeois and workers, who “are 
now scared off ... by ambitious demands”,* will join us en masse. 

The programme is not to be relinquished, but merely postponed— 
for some unspecified period. They accept it—not for themselves 
in their own lifetime but posthumously, as an heirloom for their 
children and their children’s children. Meanwhile they devote 
their “whole strength and energies”’ to all sorts of trifles, tinkering 
away at the capitalist social order so that at least something should 
appear to be done without at the same time alarming the 
bourgeoisie. Here I can only commend that communist, Miquel, 
who gives proof of his unshakable belief in the inevitable downfall 
of capitalist society within the next few hundred years by 
swindling it for all he’s worth, contributing manfully to the crash 
of 1873, and thus really doing something towards the collapse of 
the existing order.*” 

Another offence against good manners was the “exaggerated 
attacks on the Gründer”,** who, after all, were “only children of 
their time”; hence “the vilification of Strousberg and suchlike men 

. would have been better omitted”.* Sadly we are all “children of 
our time”, and if this be sufficient grounds for excuse, it is no 
longer permissible to attack anyone, and we for our part would 
have to desist from all polemic, all struggle; we would calmly 
submit whenever kicked by our opponents, because we would 
know in our wisdom that they are “only children of their time” 
and cannot act otherwise than they do. Instead of repaying them 
their kicks with interest, we should rather, it seems, feel sorry for 
the poor fellows. 

Similarly, our support for the Commune had one drawback, at 
any rate, namely 

“that it put off people otherwise well-disposed towards us, and generally 
increased the hatred felt for us by the bourgeoisie”. Moreover, the party ‘cannot be 
wholly exonerated from having brought about the October Law,325 for it had 
needlessly exacerbated the hatred of the bourgeoisie”’.€ 

“ce 

a “Programm der sozialistischen Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands”.— Ed. 
b Jahrbuch für Socialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik, p. 88.— Ed. 

© Ibid.— Ed. 

d Ibid., p. 95.— Ed. 

¢ Ibid., pp. 95, 96.— Ed. 

Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke and Others 267 

There you have the programme of the three censors of Zurich. 
As regards clarity, it leaves nothing to be desired. Least of all so 
far as we’re concerned, since we are still only too familiar with all 
these catch-phrases of 1848. There are the voices of the 
representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, terrified lest the pro- 
letariat, impelled by its revolutionary situation, should “go too 
far’. Instead of resolute political opposition— general conciliation; 
instead of a struggle against government and bourgeoisie—an 
attempt to win them over and talk them round; instead of defiant 
resistance to maltreatment from above—humble subjection and 
the admission that the punishment was deserved. Every historically 
necessary conflict is reinterpreted as a misunderstanding and 
every discussion wound up with the assurance: we are, of course, 
all agreed on the main issue. The men who in 1848 entered the 
arena as bourgeois democrats might now just as well call 
themselves Social-Democrats. To the former, the democratic 
republic was as unattainably remote as the overthrow of the 
capitalist order is to the latter, and therefore utterly irrelevant to 
present political practice; one can conciliate, compromise, philan- 
thropise to one’s heart’s content. The same thing applies to the 
class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. On paper it is 
recognised because there is no denying it any longer, but in 
practice it is glossed over, suppressed, emasculated. The Social- 
Democratic Party should not be a workers’ party, it should not 
bring upon itself the hatred of the bourgeoisie or, for that matter, 
of anyone else; above all, it should prosecute vigorous propaganda 
amongst the bourgeoisie; instead of laying stress on ambitious 
goals which are calculated to frighten off the bourgeoisie, and 
unattainable anyway in our own generation, it should rather 
devote all its strength and energies to those petty-bourgeois 
stop-gap reforms which provide new props for the old social order 
and which might, perhaps, transform the ultimate catastrophe into 
a gradual, piecemeal and, as far as possible, peaceable process of 
dissolution. These are the same people who keep up an 
appearance of ceaseless activity, yet not only do nothing them- 
selves but also try to ensure that nothing at all is done 
save—chin-wagging; the same people whose fear of any kind of 
action in 1848 and ’49 held back the movement at every step and 
finally brought about its downfall; the same people who never see 
reaction and then are utterly dumbfounded to find themselves at 
last in a blind alley in which neither resistance nor flight 1s 
possible; the same people who want to confine history within their 
narrow philistine horizons, and over whose heads history invari- 

ably proceeds to the order of the day. 

As for their socialist import, this has already been adequately 
criticised in the Manifesto, Chapter: ‘““German, or “True’ Socialism”. 
Wherever the class struggle is thrust aside as a distasteful, “crude” 
manifestation, the only basis still left to socialism will be a “true 
love of mankind” and empty phrases about “justice”’. 

It is an inevitable manifestation, and one rooted in the process 
of development, that people from what have hitherto been the 
ruling class also join the militant proletariat and supply it with 
educative elements. We have already said so clearly in the 
Manifesto. But in this context there are two observations to be 
made: 

Firstly, if these people are to be of use to the proletarian 
movement, they must introduce genuinely educative elements. 
However, in the case of the vast majority of German bourgeois 
converts, this is not the case. Neither the Zukunft nor the Neue 
Gesellschaft has contributed anything that might have advanced the 
movement by a single step. Here we find a complete lack of 
genuinely educative matter, either factual or theoretical. In place 
of it, attempts to reconcile superficially assimilated socialist ideas 
with the most diverse theoretical viewpoints which these gentlemen 
have introduced from the university or elsewhere, and of which 
each is more muddled than the last thanks to the process of decay 
taking place in what remains of German philosophy today. Instead 
of first making a thorough study of the new science, each man 
chose to adapt it to the viewpoint he had brought with him, not 
hesitating to produce his own brand of science and straightaway 
assert his right to teach it. Hence there are, amongst these 
gentlemen, almost as many viewpoints as there are heads; instead 
of elucidating anything, they have only made confusion worse—by 
good fortune, almost exclusively amongst themselves. The party 
can well dispense with educative elements such as these for whom 
it is axiomatic to teach what they have not learnt. 

Secondly, when people of this kind, from different classes, join 
the proletarian movement, the first requirement is that they 
should not bring with them the least remnant of bourgeois, 
petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but should unreservedly adopt 
the proletarian outlook. These gentlemen, however, as already 
shown, are chock-full of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. In a 
country as petty-bourgeois as Germany, there is certainly some 
justification for such ideas. But only outside the Social-Democratic 
Workers’ Party. If the gentlemen constitute themselves a Social- 
Democratic petty-bourgeois party, they are fully within their 

Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke and Others 269 

rights: in that case we could negotiate with them and, according to 
circumstances, form an alliance with them, etc. But within a 
workers’ party they are an adulterating element. Should there be 
any reason to tolerate their presence there for a while, it should be 
our duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no say in the Party 
leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a 
matter of time. That time, moreover, would appear to have come. 
How the Party can suffer the authors of this article to remain any 
longer in their midst seems to us incomprehensible. But should 
the Party leadership actually pass, to a greater or lesser extent, 
into the hands of such men, then the Party will be emasculated no 
less, and that will put paid to its proletarian grit. 

As for ourselves, there is, considering all our antecedents, only 
one course open to us. For almost 40 years we have emphasised 
that the class struggle is the immediate motive force of history 
and, in particular, that the class struggle between bourgeoisie and 
proletariat is the great lever of modern social revolution; hence we 
cannot possibly co-operate with men who seek to eliminate that 
class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the 
International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emanci- 
pation of the working class must be achieved by the working class 
itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that 
the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and 
must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members 
of the upper and lower middle classes. If the new party organ is to 
adopt a policy that corresponds to the opinions of these 
gentlemen, if it is bourgeois and not proletarian, then all we could 
do—much though we might regret it—would be publicly to 
declare ourselves opposed to it and abandon the solidarity with 
which we have hitherto represented the German Party abroad. 
But we hope it won’t come to that. 

It is intended that this letter should be communicated to all five 
members of the committee in Germany,” and also to Bracke.... 

Nor have we any objection to its being communicated to the 
people in Zurich. 

Written on September 17-18, 1879 Published according to Engels’ 
: 5 : . ie manuscript 

Internationale, XII. Jahrg., Heft 23, Published in English in full 

June 15, 1931 for the first time