London, 11 November 1884 

Dear Ede, 

The inquiry in your letter about Marx’s article on Proudhon* has 
been dealt with in my preface” where I made direct reference to it. 
You must now let me know how you propose to arrange the 
whole #°!; I may receive the proofs of the preface any day and shall 
proceed accordingly in regard to the above article, the excerpt from 
A Contribution to the Critique‘ and possibly the ‘Speech’. * 

You did right to stress in the Sozialdemokrat* that we are the only 
serious opponents of the Centre.??° Only by penetrating the strong- 
holds of the Centre—-Munich, Mainz, Cologne, Aachen, Dissel- 
dorf, Essen, etc.— shall we be able to disperse this artificially united 
omnium-gatherum of opposing views and compel every one of them 
to show their true colours. And then it will transpire that the genuine- 
ly Catholic group is simply the Catholic wing of reaction, just as in 
Belgium and France it constitutes the whole of reaction. And no one 
would suffer more from this dispersal of the Centre than Mr Bis- 
marck, who can darned well do with a hotchpotch of a party like 
that. 

I get little news of how the second ballots are going and then only 
belatedly. I hope that at this juncture a good many will turn out 
well, for the more new elements there are in the parliamentary group 
just now the better. The worst of them (the eddicated) have already 
been elected; those still to come are most of them working men and 
they can only improve the company. 

Judgment has been passed on the Anti-Socialist Law.°’ State and 
bourgeoisie have been made to look fearful asses vis-a-vis ourselves. 
But they are nevertheless going merrily on their way and anyone who 
thinks that the Law will necessarily receive its quietus as a result of 

* K. Marx, ‘On Proudhon’.- ° F. Engels, ‘Marx and Rodbertus’.- ©‘ K. Marx, 
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.- ? K. Marx, ‘Speech on the’ Ques- 
tion of Free Trade’.- © ‘Unsere Bilanz’, Der Sozialdemokrat, No. 45, 6 November 
1884 (leader). 

this could be badly mistaken. Over here old John Russell carried on 
as Prime Minister for 20 years after his political demise. To abolish 
the Law does, after all, require a decision, and they are unlikely to 
make the necessary effort. At best there would be penal clauses which 
would cause us heavier casualties than would the Anti-Socialist Law. 

We must now put forward positive proposals in regard to legisla- 
tion.°” If they are couched emphatically, i.e. without regard for 
petty-bourgeois prejudices, then they will be very good. But if they 
are Geisered and Vierecked, then they will be bad. Normal working 
day (10 hours gradually reducing to perhaps 8), domestic and inter- 
national factory legislation (in which the domestic could go further 
than the international), radical revision of the legislation affecting 
employers’ liability, accident, sickness, disabled workmen, etc.— 
these will provide enough and more to go on with. Nous verrons.* 

The 1884 elections are for us what those of 1866 were for the Ger- 
man philistine. Then, all of a sudden, he became a ‘great nation’ 
without having had anything to do with it and, indeed, against his 
will.” Now we have become a ‘great party’, but by our own hard 
work and at the cost of heavy sacrifices. Noblesse oblige. We cannot 
bring the mass of the nation over to our side unless that mass under- 
goes a gradual process of development. Frankfurt, Munich, Konigs- 
berg, cannot suddenly become as pronouncedly proletarian as 
Saxony, Berlin, the industrial Ruhr. Just now the petty-bourgeois ele- 
ments among the leaders may find here and there among the masses 
the backing they have hitherto lacked. What has hitherto been a re- 
actionary tendency in the case of individuals may now reproduce it- 
self as a necessary developmental element —localised —in the case of 
the masses. That would call for a change of tactics if the masses are to 
be helped on their way without, at the same time, allowing the bad 
leaders to gain the ascendant. Here again we shall have to wait and 
see. 

Tomorrow I shall attend to the very tricky final editing of Part III 
of the 2nd book of Capital. As soon as I have finished I hope to find 
time to rewrite the Peasant War?!* which this time will appear as 
a turning-point for the whole of the history of Germany and hence 
calls for important historical additions both at the beginning and the 
end. Only the account of the actual war will remain more or less as it 
stands. I feel that it is more important to print the Peasant War first 
rather than the Dining which I shall alter little, simply adding notes 

 We shall see.- ° See this volume, pp. 221-22.- © See present edition, Vol. 36. 

or appendices. What arrangements do you propose to make about 
the printing? 

Whatever becomes of the Anti-Socialist Law, the paper* and the 
press in Zurich must, in my view, continue to operate. They will never 
restore freedom to us, even of the pre-1878 variety. Your Geisers and 
Vierecks will be allowed complete freedom and they in turn will trot 
out the pretty excuse that they went as far as they could. But in our 
case, the requisite freedom of the press is only to be had abroad. 
Come to that, it is even possible that attempts will be made to curtail 
universal suffrage; cowardliness makes people stupid and the philis- 
tine is capable de tout. Admittedly we shall receive compliments from 
left, right and centre and they won’t in every case fall on stony 
ground. For friend Singer might feel inclined to show proof that, de- 
spite or because of his paunch, he is no ogre. 

Karl Kautsky will have received my letter of yesterday. 

Your 

F. E.