Karl Marx  
Declaration on the Causes of the Break  
with the “Social-Demokrat”  
Berlin Reform.  
No. 67, 19 March 1865  

Declaration.

In his postscript to the declaration of withdrawal by Messrs Rüstow and Herwegh (No. 31 of the “Social-Demokrat”), Herr v. Schweitzer incorporates an article despatched from London to the “Neue Frankfurter Zeitung” as proof “how inconsistent and intrinsically untenable the behaviour of Messrs Marx and Engels is”. He attempts falsification of the facts. Hence the following statement of facts.

On 11 November 1864 Herr v. Schweitzer announced to me in writing the foundation of the “Social-Demokrat”, organ of the General German Workers’ Association, and on this occasion said, among other things:

“We have approached about 6–8 trusted members of the party or men at least close to it with a view to winning them as collaborators, and it is fairly beyond doubt that these gentlemen will consent. We consider it, however, incomparably more important that you, the founder of the German workers’ party (these words are underlined by Herr v. Schweitzer himself) and its first champion, should let us have your co-operation. We cherish the hope that you will stand by an association which, even if only indirectly, can be traced back to your own activity, in its hard struggle after the great loss it has suffered.”

A prospectus, “printed as manuscript”, was enclosed with this letter of invitation. Instead of this prospectus containing, as Herr v. Schweitzer now lies to the “Neue Frankfurter Zeitung”, “Lassalle’s words as the authoritative ones”, or having “Lassalle’s name inscribed on the banner”, Lassalle figured in it neither with word nor name. The prospectus contained only three points: “Solidarity of the interests of peoples”, “the whole mighty Germany – a free people’s state”, “abolition of the rule of capital”. With express reference to this prospectus, Engels and I agreed to collaborate.

On 19 November 1864 Herr v. Schweitzer wrote to me: “Should you have any further observations to make regarding the publication of the prospectus, this would have to be done immediately.” I made no observation.

Herr v. Schweitzer further inquired whether “we (the editorial board) might expect an article from you from time to time and whether we were at the same time permitted to announce this to our readers”. Engels and I demanded first to know the company in which we were to appear publicly. Herr v. Schweitzer then enumerated them, adding: “If you should take offence at one or other of these gentlemen, the matter will presumably be settled by the consideration that there is absolutely no strict solidarity among the collaborators of a paper.”

On 28 November Herr v. Schweitzer wrote: “Your and Engels’s consent has aroused the most joyful sensation in the party, insofar as it has been apprised of it.”

The first two specimen numbers already contained much that was questionable. I protested. Among other things I expressed my indignation that a few words of consolation had been torn out of a private letter I had written to Countess Hatzfeldt on the news of Lassalle’s death, published with my signature, and shamelessly abused to ring in and ring out a servile eulogy of Lassalle. He replied on 30 December: “Dear Sir! Have patience with us – things will gradually get better, our position is very difficult. Good things take time, and so I hope you will calm down and look on for a while.” This already on 30 December 1864, when I still had only the first specimen numbers in hand!

At the beginning of January 1865, after the confiscation of one of the first numbers of the “Social-Demokrat”, I congratulated Herr v. Schweitzer on this event, adding that he must break openly with the ministry.

On the news of Proudhon’s death he asked for an article on Proudhon. I complied with his wish by return of post, but seized this opportunity, now in his own paper, to characterise “even any apparent compromise with the existing power” as a violation “of simple moral tact” and Proudhon’s coquetting with L. Bonaparte after the coup d’état as a “baseness”. At the same time Engels sent him a translation of an old Danish peasant song, in order, in a marginal gloss, to impress upon the readers of the “Social-Demokrat” the necessity of the struggle against the Krautjunkerthum.

During the same month of January, however, I again had to protest against Herr v. Schweitzer’s “tactics”. He replied on 4 February: “As regards our tactics, I ask you to consider how difficult our position is. We absolutely must first endeavour to strengthen ourselves, etc.”

At the end of January, an insinuation in the Paris correspondence of the “Social-Demokrat” prompted Engels and me to issue a declaration in which, among other things, it was stated that we were pleased to find our view confirmed that “the Paris proletariat remains irreconcilably opposed to Bonapartism in both its guises – the guise of the Tuileries and that of the Palais Royal – and has not for a moment thought of bartering away its historic birthright as the vanguard of the revolution for a mess of pottage”. The declaration closed with the words: “We recommend this model to the German workers.”

In the meantime, the Paris correspondent had corrected his earlier statement in No. 21 of the “Social-Demokrat”, thus depriving our declaration of its immediate pretext. We therefore accepted Herr v. Schweitzer’s refusal to print. At the same time, however, I wrote to him: “We shall express our view in detail elsewhere on the relation of the workers to the Prussian government.” I finally made a last attempt to make clear to him, by a practical example, the coalition question, the wretchedness of his “tactics”, if indeed they were honestly meant. He replied on 15 February:

“If, as in your last letter, you wish to enlighten me on theoretical (!) questions, I would gratefully accept such instruction from you. But as regards practical questions of momentary tactics, I ask you to consider that in order to judge these things one must be at the centre of the movement. You therefore do us an injustice if you express your dissatisfaction with our tactics anywhere and in any way. You would only be entitled to do so if you knew the circumstances precisely. Also, do not forget that the General Workers’ Association is a consolidated body and remains bound to a certain extent by its traditions. Things in concreto always drag a certain dead weight along with them.”

Engels’s and my public declaration of withdrawal was the answer to this Schweitzerian ultimatum.

London, 15 March 1865.  
Karl Marx.