COMMITTEE! 

Paris, 23 October 1846... 
There is little to be said about the Straubinger business here. 
The main thing is that the various differences I have had to 
thrash out with the lads hitherto are now settled: Grün’s chief 
follower and disciple, Papa Eisermann, has been chucked out, the 
rest, so far as their influence over the great majority is concerned, 
have been completely routed, and I have carried through a 
unanimous resolution against them. 

Briefly this is what happened: 

The Proudhonian association scheme was discussed on three 
evenings. At the beginning I had nearly the whole clique against 
me and at the end only Eisermann and the three other Griinians. 
The main thing was to prove the necessity for revolution by force 
and in general to reject as anti-proletarian, petty-bourgeois, and 
Straubingerian Grün’s true socialism, which had drawn new 
strength from the Proudhonian panacea. In the end I became 
infuriated by my opponents’ endless repetition of the same 
arguments and really pitched into the Straubingers, which aroused 
great indignation among the Griinians but succeeded in eliciting 
from the worthy Eisermann an open attack on communism. 
Whereupon I lashed him so mercilessly with my tongue that he 
never showed his face again. 
I now made use of the lever—the attack on communism— 
provided by Eisermann, the more so since Grin never ceased his 
intrigues, going from workshop to workshop, summoning the 
people to come to him on Sundays, etc., etc., and, on the Sunday* 
following the above-mentioned session, was himself so abysmally 
stupid as to attack communism in the presence of 8-10 Straubin- 
gers. I therefore declared that, before I took part in any further 
discussion, the question of whether or not we were meeting here 
as communists must be put to the vote. If the former were the 
case, we must see to it that attacks on communism such as those 
made by Eisermann never recur; if the latter, and if they were 
simply a random collection of individuals who had met-to discuss a 
random selection of subjects, I would not give a fig for them, nor 
would I ever return. This aroused much horror among the 
Griinians who, they said, foregathered here for ‘the good of 
mankind’, for their own enlightenment, men of progress and not 
biased system-mongers, etc., etc., the description ‘a random 
collection’ being in no way applicable to such respectable company. 
Moreover, they first wanted to know what communism really was 
(these curs, who for years have called themselves communists and 
only deserted out of fear of Grün and Eisermann, these two last 
having used communism as a pretext for worming their way in 
among them!). Of course I did not allow myself to be caught by 
their amiable request to tell them, ignorant as they were, in 2 or 3 
words what communism was. I gave them a highly simple 
definition which went as far as and no further than the foregoing 
points at issue, which, by positing community of goods, ruled out, 
not only peacefulness, tenderness and consideration for the 
bourgeoisie and/or the Straubinger fraternity, but also and finally 
the Proudhonian joint-stock society along with its retention of 
individual property and all that this involves; a definition which, 
furthermore, contained nothing that could give rise either to 
divagations or to any circumvention of the proposed vote. I 
therefore defined the aims of communists as follows: 1. to ensure 
that the interests of the proletariat prevail, as opposed to those of 
the bourgeoisie; 2. to do so by abolishing private property and 
replacing same with community of goods; 3. to recognise no 
means of attaining these aims other than democratic revolution by 
force. 

Two evenings were spent discussing this. During the second, the 
best of the 3 Grtinians, sensing the mood of the majority, came 

4 18 October 1846 
over to me unreservedly. The other two kept contradicting each 
other without being aware of the fact. Several chaps, who had 
never spoken before, suddenly opened their traps and declared 
themselves unequivocally for me. Up till then Junge had been the 
only one to do so. Some of these homines novi,’ although trembling 
with fear lest they dry up, spoke quite nicely and all in all seem to 
have quite a sound intellect. In short, when it was put to the vote, 
the meeting was declared to be communist in accordance with the 
above definition by 13 votes to 2, the latter being those of the pair 
who had remained true to Grün—one of whom subsequently 
declared himself exceedingly eager to be converted. 

Thus a clean sweep has at last been made and we can now 
begin, so far as is possible, to do something with these fellows. 
Grtin, who was easily able to extricate himself from his financial 
predicament” because the principal creditors were those same 
Grinians, his principal followers, has gone down a great deal in 
the opinion of the majority and of some of his followers and, 
despite al] his intrigues and experiments (e. g. attending the 
Barriére meetings! wearing a cap, etc., etc.), has been a 
resounding failure with his Proudhonian society. Had I not been 
there, our friend Ewerbeck would have fallen for it. La téte 
baissée. 

One could hardly help but admire Grün’s stratagem! Doubting 
his chaps’ intelligence, he tells them his stories over and over again 
until they can rattle them off from memory. After every 
session—nothing was easier, of course, than to reduce such an 
opposition to silence—the whole defeated gang went scuttling off 
to Grün, told him what I had said—naturally all of it distorted—, 
and had their armoury renewed. When next they opened their 
traps, one could always tell from the first couple of words exactly 
what the whole sentence would be. In view of this tale-bearing, I 
was careful not to provide the fellows with anything general which 
might assist Mr Grtin in further embellishing his true socialism; 
nevertheless, writing not long ago in the Kélner* on the occasion of 
the Geneva Revolution,'’” the cur exploited and variously distorted 
sundry things I had said to the Straubingers, whereas here in Paris 
he had drummed the opposite into them. He is now engaged in 
political economy, the worthy man. 

a new men - > See this volume, p. 62. - © With his eyes shut. - 4 This presumably 
refers to a report from Paris ‘Hr. Guizot beabsichtigt eine Intervention in der Schweiz’ 
published in the Kélnische Zeitung, No. 291, 18 October 1846. 
You'll have seen Proudhon’s book* advertised. I shall get hold 
of it one of these days; it costs 15 fr. so it’s too expensive to buy. 

The above-mentioned audience, before whom the performance 
took place, consists of approx. 20 cabinet-makers, who otherwise 
foregather only at the Barriére and then with all and sundry, 
having no really closed association of their own, save for a choral 
club, though some also belong to the rump of the League of the 
Just.** If we could assemble openly we would soon have over 100 
chaps from the cabinet-makers alone. I know only a few of the 
tailors—who also attend the cabinet-makers’ meeting. Nowhere in 
Paris have I been able to find out anything at all about blacksmiths 
and tanners. Not a soul knows anything about them. 

Not long ago Kriege, as one of the Just, laid his report before 
the ‘Halle’” (central authority). Of course I read the missive; but 
since this constituted a breach of the oath, for which the penalty 1s 
death by dagger, rope or poison, you must nowhere record same 
in writing. The letter proves, just as did his riposte to our attack, 
that he had benefited greatly from the latter and that he was now 
more concerned with the things of this world. He gave a long 
account of their difficulties. The first instalment of this American 
Straubingers’ story concerned their misfortunes—evidently Kriege 
was at the helm and his management of the money side was 
big-hearted to say the least, the Tribun* was given away, not sold, 
the funds consisted in charitable gifts, in short, by trying to 
re-enact Chapters III-VI of the Acts of the Apostles not even 
omitting Ananias and Sapphira, they finally found themselves up 
to their eyes in debt. The second period, in which Kriege became 
simply the ‘registrar’, other chaps having apparently taken over 
the financial side, was that of recovery. Instead of appealing to the 
fulness of men’s hearts, they now appealed to their lightly tripping 
feet and to their + uncommunist side generally, discovering to 
their surprise that all the money they needed could be raised by 
organising balls, picnics, etc., etc., and that human frailty could be 
exploited for the benefit of communism. Pecuniarily speaking, 
they were now thoroughly flush. Among the ‘obstacles’ they had to 
overcome, the doughty Tecklenburger’ also counts the manifold 
calumnies and aspersions they, amongst others, had had to endure 
‘and this recently at the hands of the “communist” philosophers in 
Brussels’. For the rest he indulges in some trivial prattle against 
the colonies, recommends ‘Brother Weitling’ to them (i. e. to his 
a Pp, J. Proudhon, Systéme des contradictions économiques, ou Philosophie de la misére. - 

b The reope Chamber (Volkshalle) - © K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘Circular Against 
Kriege’. - 4 Der Volks-Tribun - The Acts 5:1 -£ Hermann Kriege 
most inveterate foes), but for the most part remains fairly 
down-to-earth, if also somewhat unctuous, and only from time to 
time is there a little sighing about brotherliness, etc. 

Do you get the Réforme there? If you don’t read it, let me know 
and I will send you accounts of anything special that appears in it. 
For the past four days it has been picking on the National for 
refusing to express unconditional approval of a petition for 
electoral reform which is circulating here. This, the Réforme 
maintains, was entirely due to its partiality for Thiers. Not long 
ago it was rumoured here that Bastide and Thomas had resigned 
from the National, leaving only Marrast, and that the latter had 
allied himself with Thiers. This was denied by the National. 
However, changes have been made in its editorial department, but 
J am not aware of the details; for the past year it is known to have 
been particularly well-disposed towards Thiers; now the Réforme is 
pointing out how greatly it has compromised itself by this 
partiality. 

Moreover, it is only opposition to the Réforme, which has of late 
led the National to commit follies such as denying, purely out of 
malice, and until it could do so no longer, etc., the story, first told 
by the Réforme, of the Portuguese counter-revolution.'’ The 
Réforme is now at great pains to carry on a polemic no less brilliant 
than that of the National, but without success. 

Having got to this point in my letter, I once again went to the 
Straubingers, where the following transpired: Grin, too impotent 
to harm me in any way, is now having me denounced at the 
Barriére. Eisermann is attacking communism at the public Bar- 
riére meeting at which, owing to the presence of informers, no one, 
of course, can answer him back without incurring the risk of being 
thrown out; Junge answered him furiously (but yesterday we 
warned him against this). Thereupon Eisermann declared Junge 
to be the mouthpiece of a third person (myself, of course), who 
had suddenly irrupted amongst the people like a bomb, and he 
himself well knew how they were primed for the Barriére 
discussions, etc., etc. In short, what all his chatter amounted to was 
an out-and-out denunciation to the police; for four weeks ago the 
landlord in whose house the affair happened said: il y a toujours 
des mouchards parmi vous,* and once, at that time, the police 
inspector also turned up. He accused Junge in so many words of 
being a ‘revolutionary’. Mr Grün was present throughout and 
prompted Eisermann on what to say. This was the dirtiest trick of

materialise, 1t will not fall into the hands either of Hess or of 
Grün, or of any other muddled school. It would have its uses as a 
new broom. But not a word to anyone until it has materialised; it 
should be decided within the week.’ Farewell and write soon. 

E.