MARX TO ENGELS '” 

London, 10 October 1868 

Dear Frep, 

THanks ror THE £5. I have given Lessner £8. There is, 
incidentally, a fairly important mistake in his bill which he had, 
however, corrected before the intervention of my wife. 

Enclosed letter from Schweitzer '” together with a number of 
the Social-Demokrat which he sent me in the letter. You must 
return the letter to me by Tuesday,” together with your advice. We 
cannot temporise any longer. So that you knew exactly how matters 
stand, the following: 

For the time being, I have written to Liebknecht™ that I courp 
TAKE NO ACTION, that Schweitzer had hitherto given no official 
occasion, that an intervention on my part could only consolidate 
Lassalleanism, etc. 

As to Schweitzer, I have not yet answered his previous letter, 
the dispatch of which he is probably now cursing. Since his Trapes 
Unions Conoress' was so near, I thought it better to await ‘the 
course of events’, and To watch His operations. Now I must, of 
course, break my silence. 

As regards the letter from Schweitzer, it is clear that he does not 
feel quite happy in his boots. His threat of ‘open war’ is silly, 
though the phrase is ‘osrrnsisty’ only aimed against Liebknecht et 
Co. His claim that Mr Nobody started it, is in no way correct. His 
alleged identification with the International Working Men’s 
Association stands in a certain contradiction to his ints in the 
Social-Demokrat after the Nuremberg affair that his association had 
‘not’ joined the IWA. Above all it emerges from the whole letter 
that Schweitzer still cannot drop his fixed idea that he has ‘his own 
workers’ movement’. On the other hand, he is unquestionably the 
most intelligent and most energetic of all the present workers’ 
leaders in Germany, while Liebknecht 1 port of Fact was only 
forced by Schweitzer to recall that there existed a workers’ 
movement independent of the petty-bourgeois democratic move- 

ment. 
My plan is not to use diplomacy but to tell Schweitzer the 

unvarnished truth about my view of his dealings, and make it clear 

a See this volume, p. 122. - > 13 October 

to him that he must choose between the ‘sect’ and the ‘class’. If he 
wishes to come to a rational understanding with the ‘Nuremberg 
majority’,’”’ I am ready as ‘Secretary for Germany’ to be of aid on 
Terms which appear reasonable to me. If he does not desire this, I 
can only promise to maintain the necessary objective impartiality 
vis-a-vis his agitation. What I cannot promise, however, is that I 
will not, in my private capacity, publicly attack the Lassallean 
superstition as soon as I regard this as useful.* 

Pretty and truly Lassallean is Schweitzer’s notion that ‘two 
organisations can only be harmful’ and hence, since he preceded 
the others, they are, if not legally, then in a way morally, obliged 
to ‘dissolve’ themselves in him. 

As you know, Mr Odger is standing for Chelsea, but I believe he 
has no chance of success. Odger has shown us the cop sHoutper for 
the whole of last year since, on my proposal, ‘the president of the 
IWA’ and thus also ‘President’ Odger were abolished once and for 
all.’ Now he gives thanks for his re-election by the Brussels 
Congress and wishes us to support his election with a letter to his 
ELECTIONEERING COMMITTEE. We are only meeting his request because it 
is a step that is useful to the International and that recommends it 
in the eyes of the London workmen.’ 

When you were here last,’ you saw the Blue Book’” on the 
Irish land question 1844-1845. By accipent I found the Report and 
Evinence on Irish Tenant Ricut 1867 (House or Lorps) in a small 
second-hand booksuor. This was a real find. The economist 
gentlemen regard it purely as a question of conflicting dogmas 
whether rent is payment for natural differences in land, or on the 
other hand merely interest on the capital invested in the land; but 
here we have a real life and death struggle between Farmer and 
LANDLORD as to how far rent should include, apart from the payment 
for land differences, also the interest on the capital invested in the 
land not by the Lanptorp but by the tenant. Political economy can 
only be turned into a positive science by replacing the conr.ictinc 
pocmas by the conriicrine Facts, and by the real antagonisms which 
form their concealed background. 

Salut. Your 
K. M.