London, 18 January 1872? 

Dear Liebknecht, 

The facts about the Belgians are these: De Paepe is the only one 
who is worth anything, but he is not very active. Steens is a 
jackass, a schemer and perhaps worse, and Hins is a Proudhonist 
who by that very fact, but even more because of his Russian wife, 
has leanings towards Bakunin. The others are puppets. On the 
other hand, the Belgian workers show no inclination to spark off a 
rebellion in the International. Hence the bad grace evident in the 
formulation of the resolution.“ Fortunately, Mr Hins has been 
the victim of his own super-smartness, for the workers’ papers, 
which have not been able to look behind the scenes, interpret the 
resolution literally and so read it as a declaration in our favour. E.g. 
the Tagwacht and the Emancipacién in Madrid, etc. 

Conference resolutions’ have no necessary binding force, since 
a conference is, in itself, an illegal mechanism, justified only by 
the gravity of the situation. Hence recognition is always desi- 
rable. 

It would be good if you were to follow the lead of the Tagwacht 
and interpret the Belgian resolution as indicated above, adding 
that the resolution about revising the Rules amounts to a rejection 
of the Bakuninist call for an immediate congress. This is implicit 
because the revision would first have to be debated at their 
congress in June and only after that could it be brought before the 
regular congress of the International, which could not be held 
before the regular time scheduled in September. You could 
further remark that if the Belgians imagined that the General 
Council was nothing more than a correspondence bureau, they 
must have forgotten the Basle resolutions,*” which are of an 
entirely different nature and which at all events remain in force 
until they are revoked by a regular International congress. 

Up to now we intend to convene the congress at the regular 

a The original mistakenly has ‘1871’. - > K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘Resolutions of the 
Conference of Delegates of the International Working Men’s Association Assembled 
at London from 17th to 23rd September 1871’. 

time. It is still early to decide on the place, but it almost certainly 
will not be Switzerland, or Germany for that matter.** 

I have received one copy of the issue of the Volksstaat with my 
article,* and of the next issue nothing at all. Marx received the 
next, but not the one with my article! No doubt a mix-up in 
despatching them. Send me half a dozen copies of No. 3 and one of 
No. 4 by return. I need several for correspondents in Italy who can 
read German, etc. 

Warmest thanks from Marx for your discretion in sending the 
Neuer Social-Demokrat which, without preparation and before any 
counter-action had been initiated, would only have upset his wife 
unnecessarily. The Workers’ Society’ will reply and send its 
answer to the Volksstaat; there will be also a reply to Schneider’s 
article.*!” In the meantime, I enclose an item which is unlikely to 
give the gentlemen any pleasure.*© Apropos the Workers’ Society, 
there have been some funny goings-on there, too.**° Schneider 
and that asinine old scoundrel, Scherzer, thought they had got a 
majority, and together with Weber, who acted as intermediary, 
they made common cause with the dissident French and then 
proposed that the Society should resign from the International. Our 
people had become lax, had squandered their advantage and 
admitted far too much riff-raff. But this time things had gone too 
far. They were called out in force and the proposal was defeated 
by 27 votes to 20. A motion to expel the 20 was then tabled. The 
disorder made a vote impossible. Whereupon our people im- 
mediately salvaged all the Society’s property, moved to another 
pub and expelled the 20. The rebels are now out in the cold and 
don’t know what to do, but they had the impertinence to send 
Scherzer as their delegate to the General Council on Tuesday‘! 
Naturally, he was not admitted. 

The alliance of the ultra-federalist French with the ultra- 
centralist Germans is likewise no bad thing.*'’ Moreover, these 
French are already completely divided. When Vésinier was elected 
secretary, Theisz, Avrial et Co. resigned (for the second time). The 
remnant has split into two bodies, one of which is led by the nose 
by Vésinier, the other by Vermersch (of the Pére Duchéne, and 
here the editor of the Qui Vive! and at present of the 
Vermersch Journal). Personally and politically, the two are equally 
disreputable and at least 3 others are more than suspected of 
being spies. The French police have so overshot the mark with 

a F, Engels, “The Congress of Sonvillier and the International’. - > the German 
Workers’ Educational Society in London - ¢ 16 January 

their cunning that their mouchards* now only spend their time 
spying on each other. 

The news about the Saxons’ resolution gave us great pleasure. 
We shall see to publication in the appropriate form.*’’ Letters 
about INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS have not yet arrived.*!? 

To your questions: 

1. The [membership] cards have been superseded by stamps 
following the resolution.*”° 

2. The stamps were to have been ready yesterday at Jung’s and 
in any case will be available by the time you reply, so that we are 
just waiting to hear from you how many you need. We shall be sure 
to send them off to you. 

3. You should have given us the names or addresses of the 
Italian Freethinkers at once. Everyone we have contact with in Italy 
is a Freethinker. I assume you are referring to Stefanoni in 
Florence; he is an industrialist, a Bakuninist and—the founder of 
a rival international Freethinking, socialist society.*”' 

There is no urgency about Marx’s second anti-Proudhon 
edition.” It is much more important for Capital to appear in 
French,*” and that will not be long in coming now. Negotiations 
are pending. It would be better not to say anything about the 
second edition of Capital, since the remaining copies of the first 
edition have still to be disposed of and it would be better for this 
bomb to strike the Roschers, Fauchers & Co. unawares. 

Marx has said nothing to me about printing the essay on 
Proudhon from the Social-Demokrat< If I do not write anything to 
the contrary within a day or so, go ahead and print it. 

Sorge is a busybody who forgets that correspondence between 
here and New York takes 3 weeks, and that the General Council 
has other things on its mind apart from the American squabbles. 
Had they only waited just 1 day before staging their coup d’état,”” 
they would have had the answer from here, which would have 
rendered it superfluous. First, they admit a mass of unknown 
riff-raff in an incredibly casual fashion, and then, when the 
balloon goes up, we have to extricate them from the mess! 

Goegg was here a few days ago. He really has improved greatly, 
and has progressed roughly to the stage reached by the German 
artisans in 1848. But from petty bourgeois to artisan is a real step 
forward. It is at least possible to talk to him now, a thing which 

2 spies - > K. Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy. Answer to the ‘Philosophy of Poverty’ by 
M. Proudhon. - © K. Marx, ‘On Proudhon’. 

was quite out of the question 4 years ago. He is on his way to New 
York on business and wants to know whether you received the 
crate of wine he sent you for Christmas. He says that my article* 
killed Vogt stone-dead, and appears in general to be of the 
opinion that we were always in the right about him. It is quite 
possible that he may develop even further in time, or rather, that 
he may be developed by the course of events. 

The news from Spain is good as far as it concerns the Federal 
Council. There is still a lot of intrigue going on in Barcelona and 
there is a strong Bakuninist influence in the Federacién, but since 
in Spain the matter will be discussed by the Congress (in April) *” 
and since workers are in the majority there rather than lawyers 
and doctors, etc., I surmise that all will be well. Lafargue is 
fortunately still in Madrid; the information about the Neuer 
Social-Demokrat comes from him.’ Mesa, the editor of the 
Emancipacién, is completely on our side. 

In Italy we have Cuno in Milan, a Swiss engineer who knows 
Bebel and yourself and who up to now has blocked any 
Bakuninist resolutions there—apart from that, there are either 
Bakuninists or people who hang back. It is very difficult terrain 
and gives me a fiendish amount of work. 

I enclose reports of 2 meetings* together with a polemic against 
Bradlaugh **; furthermore the circular of Sonvillier*” in case you 
do not have it. 

Best regards from us all to you and yours. 

Your 
F. E.