MARX TO LUDWIG KUGELMANN” 

London, 23 February 1865 
1 Modena Villas, Maitland Park, 
Haverstock Hill 

Dear Friend, 

Yesterday I received your letter, which I found most interest- 
ing, and will now reply to the various points. 

First of all, I shall briefly describe my attitude towards Lassalle. 
Whilst he was pursuing his agitation, our relations were sus- 
pended, 1. on account of his bombastic self-adulation, which he 
managed to combine with the most shameless plagiarism of 
writings by myself and others; 2. because I condemned his political 
tactics; 3. because, even before he began his agitation,” I had fully 
explained and ‘proved’ to him here in London that direct socialist 
intervention by a ‘Prussian state’ was an absurdity. In his letters 
to me (from 1848 to 1863), as well as when we met personally, he 
had always declared himself a supporter of the party I represent. 

As soon as he had become convinced in London (at the end of 
1862) that he could not play his game with me, he resolved to set 
himself up as ‘workers’ dictator’ against me and the old party. In 
spite of all that, I acknowledged his merits as an agitator, although 
towards the end of his brief career even that agitation appeared to 
me in an increasingly dubious light. His sudden death, our 
friendship of old, the grief-stricken letters from Countess Hatz- 
feldt, my indignation at the cowardly impudence of the bourgeois 
papers towards the man they had feared so much while he was 
alive, all these things induced me to publish a short statement 
attacking that wretch Blind? but not dealing with the substance of 
Lassalle’s doings (Hatzfeldt sent the statement to the Nordstern’). 
For the same reasons, and in the hope of being able to drive out 
those elements whom I thought dangerous, Engels and I promised 
to contribute to the Social-Demokrat (it has published a translation 
of the ‘Address’, and, at its request, I wrote an article about 
Proudhon*¢ when the latter died) and allowed our names to be put 
out as contributors, after Schweitzer had sent us a_ satisfactory 
programme of its editorial board.** We had a further guarantee in 
W. Liebknecht being an unofficial member of the editorial board. 
In the meantime, it soon became clear—the proof of this came 
into our possession——that Lassalle had in fact betrayed the party. 
He had entered into a formal contract with Bismarck (with no 
guarantees of any kind in his hands, of course). At the end of 
September 1864, he was to go to Hamburg and there (together 
with the crazy Schramm and the Prussian police spy Marr) ‘force’ 
Bismarck to incorporate Schleswig-Holstein, i.e. to proclaim such 
in the name of the ‘workers’, etc., in return for which Bismarck 
promised universal suffrage and a few spurious socialist meas- 
ures.*° It is a pity that Lassalle was unable to play this farce 
through to its conclusion! It would have made him appear deuced 
foolish and an utter gull! And it would have put paid to all such 
attempts for ever! 

Lassalle got on the wrong path because he was, like Mr Mi- 
quel,'’' a ‘realistic politician’, only on a larger scale and with 
grander aims! (By Tue sve, I had long ago seen through Miquel 
sufficiently to explain his conduct to myself* by the fact that the 
National Association!’ offered a splendid excuse for a petty 

aK. Marx, ‘To the Editor of the Stuttgart Beobachter.-> See this volume, 
pp. 56-57. - © K. Marx, ‘Inaugural Address of the Working Men’s International 
Association’. - 4 K. Marx, ‘On Proudhon [Letter to J. B. Schweitzer]’. - © See this 
volume, pp. 107 and 112. 

Hanoverian lawyer to make himself heard beyond his own four 
walls, in Germany at large, and then to exploit the enhanced 
‘reality’ of his own self retrospectively in his native Hanover, 
playing the ‘Hanoverian’ Mirabeau under ‘Prussian’ protection, 
furthermore.) Just as Miquel and his present friends eagerly seized 
hold of the ‘New Era’! inaugurated by the Prussian Prince 
Regent in order to national-associate and to fasten on to the 
‘Prussian leadership’,’” just as in general they cultivated their 
‘pride of citizenship’ under Prussian protection, so Lassalle wanted 
to play the Marquis Posa of the proletariat to the Philipp II of the 
Uckermark,* with Bismarck as intermediary between himself 
and the Prussian monarchy. He was merely imitating the gentle- 
men of the National Association. But, if the latter were invoking 
Prussian ‘reaction’ in the interests of the middle class, he was 
shaking hands with Bismarck in the interests of the proletariat. 
Those gentlemen had more justification than Lassalle, inasmuch 
as the bourgeois is accustomed to regard the interest he perceives 
immediately in front of his nose as ‘reality’, and as this class has, 
in fact, compromised everywhere, even with feudalism, whereas 
the working class must in the nature of things be genuinely 
‘revolutionary’. 

For a histrionically vain character like Lassalle (who was not, 
however, to be bribed with such paltry things as office, mayoral- 
ties, etc.), it was a most seductive thought that he, Ferdinand 
Lassalle, might perform a deed for the direct benefit of the 
proletariat! He was, in fact, too ignorant of the real economic 
conditions required for such a deed to be critically self-consistent! 
The German workers, on the other hand, had ‘demoralised’ too far 
in consequence of the despicable ‘realistic politics’ with which the 
German bourgeoisie had tolerated the reaction of 1849-1859 and 
watched the people’s minds being stultified, for them not to hail 
such a mountebank of a saviour who was promising to help them 
reach the promised land with one bound! 

So, to take up the thread where I left off above! Hardly had the 
Social-Demokrat been established when it became clear that the old 
Hatzfeldt woman was planning to execute Lassalle’s ‘testament’ 
posthumously. She had contact with Bismarck through Wagener 
(of the Kreuz-Zeitung”). She placed the ‘Workers’ Association’ (Gen. 
German),’ the Social-Demokrat, etc., at Bismarck’s disposal. The 

4 Marquis Posa and Philipp II are characters in Schiller’s drama Don Carlos. Here 
Marx calls William I of Prussia ‘the Philipp II of the Uckermark’. - > Neue Preussische 
Zeitung 

annexation of Schleswig-Holstein was to be proclaimed in the 
Social-Demokrat, Bismarck to be generally acknowledged as patron, 
etc. The whole of this fine plan was frustrated because we had 
Liebknecht in Berlin and on the editorial board of the Soctal- 
Demokrat. Although Engels and I disliked the editorial board of 
the paper, its lickspittling cult of Lassalle, its occasional flirting 
with Bismarck, etc., it was, of course, more important publicly to 
stay with the paper for the time being in order to thwart the 
intrigues of the old Hatzfeldt woman and prevent the workers’ 
party from being totally compromised. We therefore put on bonne 
mine a mauvais jeu,* although privatim we were constantly writing 
to the Social-Demokrat telling them that they should stand up to 
Bismarck just as much as to the men of Progress.** We even 
tolerated that affected fop, Bernhard Becker, who is taking the 
importance bequeathed to him in Lassalle’s testament quite 
seriously, intriguing against the Inrervationa, Workinomen’s Associa- 
TION. 

In the meantime, Mr Schweitzer’s articles in the Social-Demokrat 
were becoming more and more Bismarckian. I had earlier written 
to him to say that, although the men of Progress can be 
intimidated over the ‘Combination question’, the Prussian govern- 
ment would never under any circumstances concede the complete 
abolition of the Combination Laws because that would entail 
breaching the bureaucratic system, giving freedom of thought and 
expression to the workers, tearing up the Rules Governing 
Servants,'*° abolishing flogging and birching by the aristocracy in 
rural areas, etc., etc., which Bismarck could never allow, it being 
altogether incompatible with the Prussian bureaucratic state.‘ I 
added that, if the Chamber were to repudiate the Combination 
Laws, the government would resort to empty phrases (such as e.g. 
that the social question requires ‘profounder’ steps to be taken, 
etc.) in order to preserve them. All this has come to pass. And 
what did Mr von Schweitzer do? He wrote an article in support of 
Bismarck '* and is reserving all his heroism for such infiniment 
petits’ as Schulze, Faucher, etc. 

I believe that Schweitzer, etc., mean it sincerely, but they are 
‘realistic politicians’. They wish to take due account of the existing 
state of affairs and not leave this privilege of ‘realistic politics’ to 
Messrs Miquel et Comp. alone. (The latter seem to wish to reserve 
the right of inrermixrcre with the Prussian government.) They 
know that the workers’ papers and the workers’ movement in 

“a brave face on it - > See this volume, pp. 64-65. -¢ ibid., p. 90, 95-96. - 
4d nonentities 

Prussia (and hence in the rest of Germany) only exist par la grace 
de la police.* They thus want to take the circumstances as they are, 
not to irritate the government, etc., quite as our ‘republican’ 
realistic politicians want to ‘put up with’ a Hohenzollern 
emperor. As I am not a ‘realistic politician’, however, I found it 
necessary together with Engels to serve notice on the Social- 
Demokrat in a public statement” (which you will probably soon see 
in one paper or other). 

You will see at the same time why there is nothing I can do in 
Prussia at the moment. The government there has flatly refused to 
restore my Prussian citizenship.'** I should only be permitted to 
agitate there in a manner agreeable to Mr von Bismarck. 

I prefer my agitation here through the Tnternational Association’ 
a 100 times. The effect on the English proletariat is direct and of 
the greatest importance. We are now srtirrinc the Genera Suffrage 
Question here, which is, naturally, of quite different significance here 
than in Prussia.'** 

As a whole, the progress made by this ‘Association’ has exceeded 
all expectations here, in Paris, in Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy. 
Only in Germany, of course, I am opposed by Lassalle’s successors 
who 1. are stupidly afraid of forfeiting their own importance; 
2. are aware of my avowed opposition to what the Germans call 
‘realistic politics’. (It is this sort of ‘reality’ that puts Germany so far 
behind all civilised countries.) 

Since any person who takes out a card at | sHmiinc can become a 
MEMBER OF THE Association; since the French have chosen this form of 
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP (ditto the Belgians) because the law prohibits 
them from joining us as an ‘association’; and since the situation is 
similar in Germany, I have now resolved to ask my friends here 
and in Germany to form small socierms, regardless of how many 
members there may be in each locality, each member of which will 
acquire an Encusn carp or Memsersuip.'*° Since the English society is 
public, there is no obstacle to this procedure even in France. I 
should appreciate it if you, too, would get in touch with London in 
this way in your neighbourhood. 

My thanks to you for your prescription. Oddly enough this vile 
disease had broken out once more 3 days before it arrived. So, the 
prescription was most timely. 

In a few days I shall send you another 24 Anppressss.© I have 
just been interrupted in my writing by a friend, and, as I very 
« by the grace of the police - > K. Marx and F. Engels, “To the Editor of the 
Social-Demokrat’. - © K. Marx, ‘Inaugural Address of the Working Men’s Internation- 
al Association’. 

much want to send off this letter, I shall take up the other points 

in your letter next time. 
Yours 
K. M.