Karl Marx
Draft of an article on the debate
on the Anti-Socialist Law in the German Reichstag

|[1]] Reichstag sitting of 16 and 17 September 1878
Vice-Bismarck — v. Stolberg spoke 4 minutes, 7 seconds.
From the stenographic record.
Reichstag. 4th Sitting. Monday. 16 September 1878. President: Forcken-
beck. (Sitting opened at 11.30 a.m. Closed at 3.40 p.m.)

Deputy of the Reich Chancellor, State Minister Count zu Stolberg-
Wernigerode:
“It will be a matter … of ensuring that this agitation cannot in future be carried on under any semblance of legality.”

From the speeches of the sitting of 16th September.

Assassination attempt.

Bebel: “Gentlemen, at the beginning of today’s proceedings the representative of the Reich Chancellor, as well as a few days ago in the Speech from the Throne and likewise in the explanatory memorandum to the bill before us, pointed in particular to the assassination attempts; all the speakers today have also touched upon the assassination attempts to a greater or lesser degree, and all of them have designated the assassination attempts as the immediate occasion for this exceptional law, and nothing is more obvious than that they were the cause. — In that case, gentlemen, one might fairly have expected the government to express itself clearly and precisely on this matter, to show what discoveries it had made, what incriminating facts against us had been brought to light which proved a connection between the assassins and Social-Democracy, even if only an ideal one. Nothing of the kind has happened, however, to this day; it has remained at empty words and accusations. Nevertheless, the catchword continues: ‘Social-Democracy is to blame for the assassination attempts.’ The accusation is: ‘Social-Democracy is the party of emperor-murderers’, etc. … We are absolutely not willing to put up with the fact that people are still silent today____ We have the most lively interest, first of all, in knowing what is contained in the numerous

159
Karl Marx

records that were written down on account of the assassination attempts. We demand in particular to know what has come to light in the extraordinarily numerous interrogations which have taken place in various parts of Germany with party comrades of ours and non-party comrades, with people of the most diverse tendencies, who stood in however remote a relation to the assassins. We, upon whom the blame and the responsibility are being shifted, finally demand clarity. Particularly also with regard to the last assassination attempt, which was the most immediate occasion for the new election of the Reichstag and for the submission of this law. …

I left (the ‘Vorwärts’, where I was making inquiries about Dr. Nobiling, this on 2 June (1878) late in the evening) very satisfied with what I had heard, and a few minutes later came to a shop, where to my utmost astonishment I found posted a dispatch which read:

‘Berlin. 2 o’clock at night. At the subsequent judicial questioning the assassin Nobiling admitted that he adhered to socialist tendencies, that he had also repeatedly attended socialist meetings here, and that for eight days already he had had the intention of shooting His Majesty the Emperor, because he considered it beneficial for the welfare of the state to remove the head of state.’ |

|[2]] … The dispatch that hurled this news into the world is expressly described as official. I have here in my hand the dispatch which was officially communicated to the editors of the ‘Kreuzzeitung’, with notes in the hand of the editor of the ‘Kreuzzeitung’. There is not the slightest doubt about the official character of this dispatch. Now, however, various credible reports have demonstrated that no judicial questioning of Nobiling was conducted at all on the day of the assassination attempt or in the night following it, that nothing was established that could in any way be regarded as a serious basis for the motives of the murderer and his political views. Every one of you, gentlemen, knows how matters stand with Wolff’s Telegraph Bureau (assent), everyone knows that such dispatches absolutely cannot pass without being officially approved. To make matters worse, the word ‘official’ was expressly added officially to this dispatch. In my opinion, then, there is no doubt at all that this dispatch was deliberately and intentionally falsified by official quarters, and as such was sent out into the world. (Hear, hear!) The dispatch contains one of the most infamous calumnies that has ever been hurled into the world by official quarters, and indeed with the intention of casting suspicion on a whole great party in the most disgraceful manner and branding it as the accomplice of a criminal.”

160

Draft of an article on the debate on the Anti-Socialist Law in the German Reichstag

“I further ask how it was possible for the government organs, the entire officious and official press, followed by almost the whole of the rest of the press, to be allowed, relying on the said dispatch, to attack us week after week and month after month, day after day, in the most unheard-of and slanderous manner; to be allowed, day after day, to hurl into the world the most horrifying and alarming reports of discovered plots, accomplices, etc., without a single time from the government side etc… On the contrary, everything has been done from the government side to spread and consolidate the belief in the correctness of the untrue assertions in public opinion further and further, and up to this very hour the official representatives of the government have not even deigned to give the slightest clarification of the obscurities that exist. …” Bebel now comes (p. 39, column II) to the baiting. “Efforts have obviously been made to provoke disturbances; it was intended to irritate us to the utmost, so that we might allow ourselves to be induced to commit acts of violence of some kind. The assassination attempts were evidently not enough for them. In certain circles they would undoubtedly have been delighted if we had allowed ourselves to be led into acts of violence by this baiting, in order then to possess all the more copious and weightier material against us for the sharpest intervention, etc.” Bebel thereupon demands “that at last the records be brought to light, that they be submitted in print to the Reichstag and especially to the committee which has to examine this bill. I put forward here a demand similar to that which was made, with full right, a few days ago, with the approval of almost all sides of the House, in connection with the accident to the ‘Großer Kurfürst’, and the granting of which the Minister of Marine (v. Stosch) expressly conceded, as far as it depended on him (!).” (Bebel’s demand greeted from the Reichstag with “Very true! Very good!”) |

|[3]] (What answer does the Prussian government now give to this devastating accusation? It answers through the mouth of Eulenburg that it will not submit the records; and that no incriminating material exists at all.)

Minister of the Interior, Count zu Eulenburg: “In the first respect” (information from the representatives of the federal governments concerning “the investigation that had taken place against the now deceased criminal Nobiling”)

1) “In the first respect I have to state that the possibility or admissibility of communicating the proceedings in the action which was instituted against Nobiling would have to be decided by the Prussian judicial authority, if the submission is demanded. So much, however, gentlemen,

161

Karl Marx

I can tell you, that a questioning of Nobiling did take place, and that in this questioning, as much as has become known to me thereof, he declared that he had taken part in social-democratic meetings and had found pleasure in the doctrines presented there. I must refrain from communicating more, in consideration of the circumstance that the Prussian judicial authority has to decide on the submission of the files.”

(The only positive thing Eulenburg says is: 1) that “a” questioning took place; he is careful not to say a “judicial” questioning. He equally does not say when the one questioning took place (presumably after part of his brain had escaped as a result of the bullet driven through his head).) What Eulenburg, however, makes Nobiling say in this “one” questioning (assuming Nobiling was in a state of accountability), proves, firstly: that he did not pass himself off as a Social-Democrat, not as a member of the Social-Democratic party; he merely said that he attended a few of its meetings, like many other philistines, and “had found pleasure in the doctrines presented there”. The doctrines were therefore not his doctrines. In relation to them he behaved as a novice. Secondly: that he placed his “assassination attempt” in no connection with the meetings and the doctrines set forth there.

But the curiosities are not yet finished: the “so much” that Herr Eulenburg can tell he himself renders problematic by saying: “that in this questioning, as much as has become known to me thereof, he declared”. According to this, Herr Eulenburg has therefore never seen the record; he knows it only by hearsay, and can only say as much as “has become known to him” in this way. But immediately afterwards he gives himself the lie. He has just said everything “that has become known to him thereof”. Yet in the immediately following sentence it says: “I must refrain from communicating more, in consideration of the circumstance that the Prussian judicial authority has to decide on the submission of the files.” In other words: He would ||[4]] compromise the government if he “communicated” what he knows.

By the way: if only one questioning took place, we also know “when”, namely on the day when Nobiling was arrested with bullets in his head and a sabre wound to the head, namely on the day, on the day when the infamous telegram was let loose, 2 o’clock at night, 2 June. Later, however, the government sought to hold the Ultramontane party responsible for Nobiling. The questioning had therefore by no means established any connection whatsoever between Nobiling’s assassination attempt and Social-Democracy.

But Eulenburg is not yet finished with his admissions. He must “expressly point out that already in May from this place I said the assertion

162

Draft of an article on the debate on the Anti-Socialist Law in the German Reichstag

was not that these deeds had been directly instigated by Social-Democracy; nor am I at present in a position to set up this assertion, or to add anything new at all in this direction”. Bravo! Eulenburg straight out admits that the whole disgraceful police and investigative witch-hunt that took place from Hödel’s assassination attempt up to the meeting of the Reichstag has not yielded an atom of fact for the government’s favourite “theory” of the assassination attempts!

Eulenburg and his consorts, who have such tender “regard” for the competence of the “Prussian judicial authority” that they find in it a presumptive obstacle to laying the “minutes” before the Reichstag after Hödel has been beheaded and Nobiling has died, and the investigation is therefore once and for all concluded, are not embarrassed at the beginning of the investigation against Nobiling, on the very day of his assassination attempt, to evoke the delirium tremens of the German philistine by means of a tendentiously coloured “telegram” about Nobiling’s alleged first interrogation, and then to let a tissue of lies be built up through their press! What respect for the judicial authority, and particularly for those who, along with the government, are accused!

After Herr Eulenburg has thus declared that there is no factual basis for the indictment of Social-Democracy on the grounds of these assassination attempts—and he therefore also refuses to produce the minutes, which will shed a grotesque light on this disgusting circumstance—he goes on to say that the bill is actually based only on a “theory”, the government theory “that the doctrines of Social-Democracy and the manner in which they are disseminated in passionate agitation might well be suited to bring such sad fruits to ripeness in brutalised minds as we have, to our deepest regret, had to experience” (the sad fruits, like Sefeloge, Tschech, Schneidet, Becker, Kullmann, Cohen (alias Blind)?) and in this assertion, gentlemen, I believe I am still in agreement with the entire German press (i.e., insofar as it is reptilised, i.e., with the single exception of the independent papers of all trends), with the sole exception of the Social-Democratic press.” (Again a pure lie! (The meetings which Nobiling attended took place, like all of them, under the supervision of a policeman; so there was nothing compromising about them; the doctrines he heard could only have referred to the items on the agenda.))

||[5]] After these factually false assertions about the “entire German press”, Herr Eulenburg is “sure of encountering no contradiction in this direction.”

163

Karl Marx

Against Bebel he must “recall the position which the Social-Democratic press adopted towards these events”, in order to prove “that Social-Democracy does not, as it asserts, ‘abominate’ murder, in whatever form it may occur”.

Proof: 1) “First, an attempt was made in the organs of Social-Democracy to demonstrate that the assassination attempts were a put-up job.” (Crownprince)

(Complaints of the “Norddeutsche Allgemeine” about the legal character of German Social-Democratic agitation.)

2) “When it was seen that no further progress could be made along this path… they went over to asserting the insanity of the two criminals, portraying them as isolated idiots and their acts as phenomena such as have occurred now and then in all ages (is that not so?) and for which no one else can be held responsible.” ((proves love of “murder”) (done by many non-Social-Democratic journals.))

Herr Eulenburg, instead of presenting the “minutes”, about which, according to his earlier statement, he knows nothing, or what he knows he must “refrain” from divulging out of regard for the “Prussian judicial authority”—now demands that on the basis of these withheld “minutes” one must believe him the following: “Gentlemen, the investigation which has been conducted has not produced the slightest point of support for the notion that the two men were in any way incapable of weighing the consequences and the meaning of their acts. On the contrary, everything that has been able to be established is that they acted with full criminal responsibility, and in the latter case with a malignant, cunning premeditation (so not in the case of the beheaded Hödel?) such as has seldom been seen.”

3) “In many organs of Social-Democracy they proceeded to excuse these acts, to exculpate the perpetrators. They have held responsible not them, but society (The government has exculpated them, by making responsible not them, but “the doctrines of Social-Democracy” and the agitation of the working class—hence a part of society and its “doctrines”) for the crimes (thus they did not exculpate the acts, otherwise they would not have regarded them as “crimes” and would not have discussed the question of “guilt” at all) which had been committed.” {Cites “Vorwärts”, referred to Hödel, with full justice}

After all this rubbish:

4) “Parallel to this, gentlemen, went the utterances about the atrocious acts that were attempted, or carried out, against high officials in Russia. With regard to the assassination attempt of Vera Zasulich (the St Petersburg jury and the press of the entire world!) and the murder of General von Mezentsov (more on that later in connection with Bismarck), they read in a paper appearing here the question: ‘Well, what else was left to them? How else could they help themselves?’”

5) Finally, “Social-Democracy abroad has expressly and in direct words expressed its sympathy with these acts. The Congress of the Jura Federation, which met in Freiburg in July of this year, expressly declared that the acts of Hödel and Nobiling were revolutionary acts that had its full sympathy, etc.”

But is German Social-Democracy “responsible” for the statements and movements of a clique hostile to it, whose “assassinations” and attempted [assassinations] have so far been perpetrated in Italy, Switzerland, Spain (also Russia: Nechayev) only against members of “the Marx faction”?

(Earlier, Herr Eulenburg had already said, with reference to these same anarchists, that the view that “the assassination attempts were a put-up job” had to be abandoned “when even organs of Social-Democracy—I shall later give a sample of it—declared abroad that they were convinced that such was not the case”; he forgets to give the “sample”.)

Now follows the fine passage about “the Marx faction” and “the faction of the so-called anarchists” (p. 51, column I). They are different, but “it cannot be denied that all these connections stand to one another in a certain (what? hostile) connexion”, just as this certain connexion actually exists between all phenomena of one and the same epoch. If one wants to make this “connexion” into a cas pendable, then one must above all prove its specific character and not rest content with a phrase that fits everything and everyone in the universe, where everything is in a “certain” connexion with everything else. The “Marx faction” has proved that a specific connexion exists between the doctrines and deeds of the “anarchists” and those of the European “police”. When, in the publication “L’Alliance” etc., this connexion was revealed in detail, the whole reptilian and right-minded press remained silent. These “revelations” did not suit their “connexion”. (Up to now, this clique has perpetrated murderous attacks only on members of the “Marx” faction.)

After this faux-fuyant, Herr Eulenburg attaches, by means of an inconspicuous “and”, a sentence which seeks to prove this “connexion” by a false common place, expressed moreover in a particularly “critical” form:

“And”, he continues, “and it is an experience in such movements, which rests on the law of gravitation (a movement can rest on the law of gravitation, e.g., the motion of falling, but experience rests prima facie only on the phenomenon of falling), that the more extreme tendencies (e.g., in Christianity—self-mutilation) gradually gain the upper hand and the more moderate ones cannot hold their own against them.”

165

Karl Marx

In the first place, it is a false common place that in historical movements the so-called extreme tendencies of the movement of the time gain the upper hand—Luther against Thomas Münzer, the Puritans against the Levellers, the Jacobins against the Hébertists. History proves the exact opposite. In the second place, however: the “anarchist” tendency is not an “extreme” of German Social-Democracy, which Eulenburg wants to prove and instead merely presupposes. The one is the real historical movement of the working class; the other is a phantom image of the jeunesse sans issue, who want to make history, and only shows how the ideas of French socialism are caricatured in the hommes déclassés of the upper classes. Consequently, anarchism has in fact everywhere been defeated and only vegetates where there is still no real workers’ movement. That is the fact.

Herr Eulenburg only proves how dangerous it is when the “police” sets about “philosophising”.

||[7]] See the sentence that follows, column I, p. 51, where Eulenburg speaks as if the matter were settled.

Now he wants to prove the “anti-social character of the doctrines and aims of Social-Democracy”! But how? By means of 3 quotations.

But first, the brilliant transitional phrase:

“And if you look more closely at these doctrines and aims of Social-Democracy, then it is not, as was said earlier, peaceful development that is the goal, but peaceful development is only a stage which is to lead to the final goals, which can be reached in no other way than by the path of violence” (rather as the “Nationalverein” was a “stage” to lead to the forcible Prussianisation of Germany; that is how Herr Eulenburg (“blood and iron”) imagines the matter).

If one takes the first part of the sentence, he only utters a tautology or a foolishness: if development has a “goal”, “final goals”, then these “goals” are its “goals”, and not the character of the development, “peaceful” or “unpeaceful”. What Eulenburg really wants to say is: peaceful development towards the goal is only a stage which is to lead to the violent development of the goal, and, according to Herr Eulenburg, this subsequent transformation of “peaceful” into “violent” development lies in the nature of the goal itself which is striven for. The goal in the given case is the emancipation of the working class and the revolution (transformation) of society contained within it. A historical development can remain “peaceful” only so long as no violent obstacles are placed in its path by the respective social rulers. If, for example, in England or the United States the working class gains a majority in Parliament or Congress, it could, by legal means, remove the laws and institutions standing in the way of its development, and even then only to the extent that the development of society was ripe for it. Nevertheless, the “peaceful” movement could turn into a “violent” one through the revolt of those having an interest in the old condition; if they are put down by force (see the American Civil War and the French Revolution), then as rebels against “legal” authority.

166

Konzept eines Artikels zur Debatte über das Antisozialistengesetz im Deutschen Reichstag

167
Karl Marx

But what Eulenburg preaches is forcible reaction on the part of those in power against a development that finds itself “in a peaceful stage”; and indeed with a view to preventing later “forcible” conflicts; the war-cry of forcible counter-revolution against the de facto “peaceful” development; in fact the government is attempting forcibly to put down a development which is distasteful to it but legally unassailable. This is the necessary prelude to forcible revolutions. It is an old story, yet it remains eternally new.

Herr Eulenburg now proves the Social Democracy’s doctrines of force by means of 3 quotations:

1) Marx says in his work on capital: “Our ends etc.” (but “our” ends is said in the name not of the German Social Democracy, but of the Communist Party) The passage is not to be found in *Capital*, which appeared in 1867, but in the *Communist Manifesto*, which appeared in “1847”, hence 20 years before the actual formation of the “German Social Democracy”.

2) And in another passage, which is quoted in Herr Bebel’s work “Our Goals”, it says as a saying of Marx: (He himself, who quotes from *Capital* a passage that is not in it, naturally quotes a passage that is in it as a saying cited elsewhere: (cf. passage in *Capital*, 2nd ed.)) But the passage in Bebel reads:

“So we see, therefore, how in the various historical periods force plays its part, ||[8]] and it is probably not without justice that K. Marx (in his book ‘Capital’, where he depicts the course of development of capitalist production) calls out: ‘Force is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power.’”

3) Quotation from Bebel: “Our Goals” (Column I, p.51), namely quotes: “The course of this development depends on the intensity (strength) with which the circles concerned seize the movement; it depends on the resistance which the movement encounters from its opponents. One thing is certain: the more violent the resistance, the more forcible the bringing about of the new state of affairs. The question will in no case be solved by sprinkling rose-water.” (This Eulenburg quotes from Bebel: “Our Goals”; it is on p. 16; see the underlined passage 16 and ditto 15; cf. ditto the underlined passage p.43). Again “falsified”, because quoted out of context.

After these tremendous achievements, see the childish and self-disintegrating idiocy which he prates about Bismarckian “contacts” with the “leaders of the Social Democracy”. (p.51, Column II)

In the same sitting:

After Stolberg, Reichensperger speaks. His main fear: that the law, which subjects everything to the police, may also be applicable to other parties distasteful to the government; in addition to this, everlasting Catholic bleating. (See the underlined passages pp. 30—35)

After Reichensperger, von Helldorff-Bedra speaks. The most naïve: “Gentlemen, the present law is characterised as a preventive law in the most eminent sense of the word; it contains no penal provisions, but merely gives the authority for police bans and attaches penalties to the contravention of these outwardly recognisable prohibitions” (p.36, Column I) (It only permits the police to prohibit everything, and punishes not the contravention of any law, but the “contravention” of police ukases. A very successful manner of rendering penal laws superfluous.)

The “danger”, Herr v. Helldorff confesses, lies in the election victories of the Social Democrats, which have not even been impaired by the baiting over the attempts on the Kaiser’s life! They must be chastised for that. The exercise of universal suffrage in a manner distasteful to the government! (36, Column II)

The fellow, however, agrees with Reichensperger that the “complaints body”, the “Federal Council commission”, is idiocy. “It is simply a matter of deciding a police question, and to surround such a body with legal guarantees — decidedly wrong;” against misuse, what helps is “trust in highly placed political officials”. (37, I and II) Demands a “correction of our franchise”. (38, I) |

168