Marx to Henry Mayers Hyndman

in London
(Draft)

2 July 1881
43, Terminus Road
Eastbourne, Sussex

Dear Sir,

The state of health of my wife, which is becoming more critical every day, requires that I be constantly at her side and also explains my belated reply to your letter of 5 June.

I confess that I was rather surprised when I learned that you had kept so strictly secret during your stay in London your plan, conceived and also carried out some time ago — to publish the article rejected by the “Nineteenth Century,” with some alterations, as Chapters II and III of “England for All,” as your presentation of the founding programme of the Federation.

In your letter, which nowhere addresses this surprise in store for me, you say:

“Do you think I should mention your name when I refer to your book, etc.”

This question, it seems to me, you should have put before publication and not afterwards.

You deign to give two reasons for having made such extensive use of “Capital,” a work not yet translated into English, without mentioning either the book or its author.

One reason is that “many (Englishmen) detest socialism and the name.” Was it to lessen this detestation that you invoked “the demon of socialism” on p. 86?

Your second and last reason is that “Englishmen do not like to be taught by foreigners”!

I was unable to observe this either in the time of the “International” or of Chartism. But let that pass. If you were frightened by this detestation “of” Englishmen, why then do you tell them on p. VI of the Preface, that the “ideas” etc. of Chapters II and III, whatever they may be, in any case bear the stigma of not being a native product? The Englishmen with whom you have to deal can hardly be so dull of comprehension as to suppose that the above-mentioned passage came from the pen of an — English author.

Yet apart from your rather ridiculous reasons, I am firmly convinced that the mention of “Capital” and its author would have been a grave mistake. In party programmes everything should be avoided that points to clear dependence on individual authors or books. I venture to add that they are also not the appropriate place for new scientific discoveries, such as those you have borrowed from “Capital.” Moreover, they are completely out of place in the presentation of a programme, with whose proclaimed aims they have absolutely nothing in common. They might have been suitable for the exposé of a programme for the founding of an independent and autonomous workers’ party.

You kindly informed me that your pamphlet, “although ‘the price of half a crown’ is printed on it, is not intended for sale,” but is “only” “distributed to members of the Democratic Federation, etc.” I am firmly convinced that this was your intention, but I am aware that this is not the view of your publisher. One of my friends saw your pamphlet in my study, wanted to have it, jotted down its title and the publishing house, ordered it on 13 June through his booksellers Mal and Norgate, and received it with an invoice dated 14 June.

And that brings me to the only point that is of practical importance. Should the press fall upon your pamphlet, I shall probably be compelled to say something, as Chapters II and III consist partly of passages that are simply translated from “Capital” but are not set off from the rest of the text by quotation marks, a large part of which is not exact and even gives rise to misunderstandings.

I have written with all the candour that I regard as the first condition of friendly relations.

Kindest regards from my wife and myself to Mrs H[yndman].

Yours faithfully,
K. M.