{[London, 17-18 September 1879] 
Dear Bebel, 


The delay in replying to your letter of 20* August has been 
due, on the one hand, to Marx’s prolonged absence 50° and, on the 
other, to a number of incidents: first, the arrival of the ‘Richter’ 
Jahrbuch,” secondly that of Héchberg himself.” 

I can only conclude that Liebknecht did not show you the last 
letter I wrote him, although I specifically instructed him to do so. 
Otherwise you would certainly not have adduced the same reasons 
as had been put forward by Liebknecht, and to which I had 
already replied in the aforesaid letter.°” 

Let us now run through the individual points with which we 
are concerned here. 


I. THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CARL HIRSCH 


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 


4 The original erroneously has: ‘29’. - > See this volume, p. 393. 


Ke) 
OL 


276. Marx and Engels. Circular Letter. 17-18 Sept. 1879 3 


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 informa- 
tion from Zurich’ (Liebknecht to Hirsch, 28 July), didn’t arrive.” 
But what did reach Hirsch from Zurich was a letter from 
Bernstein (24 July) 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 26 July, 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 31 July, 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 commiitee 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 in- 
formed! 

Hirsch, quite justifiably outraged by this treatment, chose 
rather to come to an understanding with the Leipzigers. His letter 
of 2 August 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.*?’ 


396 276. Marx and Engels. Circular Letter. 17-18 Sept. 1879 


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


‘Of course finance is available for the undertaking, seeing that it is backed by the 
entire party+(INCLUSIVE) Héchberg. But I’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 
editorial committee, but is only to be entrusted with administration 
and the financial side. As late as 14 August, Liebknecht wrote to 
me along the same lines, and asked that we persuade Hirsch to 
accept. You yourself, as late as 20 August were still so little 
acquainted with the actual circumstances that you wrote to me 
saying: 

‘He’ (Hochberg) ‘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 11 August, 
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 as 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 3 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 


4 Louis Viereck 


276. Marx and Engels. Circular Letter. 17-18 Sept. 1879 397 


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, 
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, 14 August: 

‘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,>!9 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 26 July, 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 Héchberg 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+Hdéchberg) 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 


a Wilhelm Liebknecht - > See this volume, pp. 398-400. 


398 276. Marx and Engels. Circular Letter. 17-18 Sept. 1879 


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 people to contro] 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 24 July 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.° 


‘ 


4 Ignaz Auer and Karl Grillenberger - > On 26 July 1879. - © Eduard Bernstein’s 
letter to Carl Hirsch of 31 July 1879. - 4 See this volume, p. 397. 


276. Marx and Engels. Circular Letter. 17-18 Sept. 1879 399 


Hirsch again wrote to Héchberg, 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’. 


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 Héchberg 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 


a See ‘Programm der sozialistischen Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands’, Der Volksstaat, 
No. 59, 28 May 1875. - > 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.’ 


400 276. Marx and Engels. Circular Letter. 17-18 Sept. 1879 


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 
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. imperial railways*’—when they have 
become a practical issue. The reason for this is that the party or- 
gans, notably the 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 dis- 
crediting itself through the person of and in company with Kayser. 


276. Marx and Engels. Circular Letter. 17-18 Sept. 1879 401 


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 socialist on principle and 
dispassionate. 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.