Works of Frederick Engels 1892>

Works of Frederick Engels 1892
Biography of Marx

Marx, Heinrich Karl, was born in Trier on May 5, 1818, the son of the
lawyer and later counsellor of justice Heinrich Marx, who, as is shown
by the baptismal certificate of his son, converted with his family
from Judaism to Protestantism in 1824. After concluding his
preparatory education at Trier Gymnasium, Karl Marx studied from 1835
in Bonn and then in Berlin, first law and later philosophy, attaining
his Dr. Phil. in Berlin in 1841 with a dissertation on the philosophy
of Epicurus. In the same year he moved to Bonn in order to qualify as
a lecturer, but the obstacles which the government laid in the path of
his friend Bruno Bauer, officially there as lecturer in theology,
which culminated in Bauer's removal from the university, soon made it
clear to him that there was no room for him at a Prussian university.
- This was the time when the younger elements of the radical
bourgeoisie of the Rhineland, tinged with Young Hegelianism, urged, in
agreement with the liberal leaders Camphausen and Hansemann, the
publication of a big opposition paper in Cologne; Marx and Bauer were
also consulted as capable main contributors. A concession - necessary
at that time - was quietly obtained by a devious route, and the
Rheinische Zeitung appeared on January 1, 1842. Marx contributed
lengthy articles from Bonn for the new paper; foremost among these
were: a critique of proceedings in the Rhine Province Assembly, a
study of the situation of the peasant vintners on the Mosel, and
another on wood theft and the relevant legislation. In October 1842 he
took over the management of the paper and moved to Cologne. From this
point the paper adopted a sharply appositional character. But the
management was so adroit that despite first double censorship, and
then triple censorship, imposed upon the paper (first the ordinary
censor, then the Regierungspräsident, and finally a Mr. von Saint-Paul
dispatched ad hoc from Berlin), the government found this sort of
newspaper hard to deal with and therefore decided to forbid further
publication of the paper as of April 1, 1843. Marx's resignation from
the editorial board on this date bought a three months' stay of
execution, but then the paper was finally suppressed.

Marx then decided to move to Paris where Arnold Ruge also wished to
turn, following the suppression of the Deutsche Jahrbücher at about
the same time. But first in Kreuznach he married Jenny von Westphalen,
sweetheart of his youth, to whom he had been engaged since the
beginning of his university days. The young couple reached Paris in
the autumn of 1843, and here Marx and Ruge published the
Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, a journal of which only the first
issue appeared; a continuation failed, partly because of the
insuperable difficulties of circulating it secretly in Germany, and
partly because of the differences of principle which very soon became
apparent between the two editors. Ruge remained tied up with Hegelian
philosophy and political radicalism, while Marx threw himself into the
study of political economy, the French socialists, and the history of
France. The result was his conversion to socialism.

In September 1844, Fr. Engels visited Marx in Paris for a few days:
the two had been in correspondence since their joint work, on the
Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, and their collaboration, which only
ended with the death of Marx, dates from this point. The first fruit
of this collaboration was a polemical pamphlet against Bruno Bauer,
with whom they had likewise parted ways on principles in the course of
the disintegration of the Hegelian school: The Holy Family, or
Critique of Critical Criticism. Against Bruno Bauer and Company,
Frankfurt a. M., 1845.

Marx helped to edit a small German weekly called Vorwärts!, published
in Paris, which poured biting scorn op the wretchedness of the German
absolutism and sham constitutionalism of the time. This prompted the
Prussian Government to demand that Guizot's ministry expel Marx from
France. It was agreed: in early 1845 Marx moved to Brussels, and
Engels arrived there soon afterwards. Here Marx published The Poverty
of Philosophy. Answer to the "Philosophy of Poverty" by M. Proudhon,
Brussels and Paris, 1847, and also "Speech on the Question of Free
Trade", Brussels, 1848. In addition he wrote occasional articles for
the Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung. In January 1848 he drew up, together
with Engels, the Manifesto of the Communist Party on the instructions
of the Central Authority of the Communist League, a secret propaganda
society which Marx and Engels had joined in the spring of 1847. The
Manifesto has since appeared in innumerable authorised and
unauthorised German editions and been translated into nearly all
European languages.

On the outbreak of the 1848 February Revolution, which brought about
popular movements in Brussels too, Marx was arrested and expelled from
Belgium; in the meantime the Provisional Government of the French
Republic had invited him to come back to Paris, so he returned there.

At first in Paris he and his friends took a stand against the game of
forming legions, which gave the majority in the new government a
simple means of ridding themselves of the "tiresome" foreign workers.
It was clear that such openly organised Belgian, German, etc., legions
would only be able to march across the frontiers into a well-organised
trap, and this was indeed the case. Marx and the other leaders of the
Communist League obtained for about four hundred unemployed Germans
the same travel allowance as the legionaries, so that they too could
return to Germany.

In April Marx went to Cologne, and on July 1 the Neue Rheinische
Zeitung was published there under his management; it appeared for the
last time on May 19 the following year. The editors were either
threatened with judicial arrest, or with expulsion as non-Prussians.
The latter fate befell Marx, who during his time in Brussels had taken
his release from the Prussian state. During the existence of the paper
he had to appear twice before the jury, on February 7, 1849 because of
a press misdemeanour, and on the 8th on charges of incitement to armed
resistance to the government (at the time of the tax refusal, November
1848); both times he was acquitted.

After the paper had been suppressed Marx returned to Paris, but after
the demonstration of June 13 he was faced with the choice of either
allowing himself to be interned in Brittany or of turning his back on
France once again. He naturally chose the latter and moved to London,
where he now finally established his residence.

In London he published: the Neue Rheinische Zeitung.
Politisch-ökonomische Revue, Hamburg, 1850, of which six issues

His main work there was 1848 to 1849 [The Class Struggles in France,
1848 to 1850], an account of the causes and the inner connection of
the events of these years, particularly in France; also (together with
Engels) reviews and political résumés. The former work was soon
followed by the continuation, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis
Bonaparte, New York, 1852, reissued in Hamburg in 1869 and 1885. The
big Communist trial in Cologne gave rise to a further pamphlet,
Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne, Boston, 1853,
latest edition Zurich, 1885. From 1852 onwards Marx was London
correspondent of the New-York Tribune, and for years virtual European
editor. His articles are in part signed with his name, and in part
published as editorials: they are not ordinary articles, but extensive
accounts of the political and economic position of the various
countries of Europe, based upon thorough study, and often constituting
a whole series of articles. The military essays amongst them, on the
Crimean War, the Indian Rebellion, etc., are by Engels. Some of Marx's
articles on Lord Palmerston were reprinted in London in pamphlet form.
His work for the Tribune only came to an end with the American Civil

The year 1859 involved Marx, on the one hand, in a polemic with Karl
Vogt arising from the Italian War, which found its conclusion in Herr
Vogt by Karl Marx, London, 1860. But on the other hand, it brought the
first fruits of his years of economic studies in the British Museum in
the form of Part One of A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy, Berlin, 1859. This Part One had scarcely been published when
Marx discovered that he was not yet completely clear about the
detailed execution of the basic ideas of the subsequent parts; the
manuscript, which is still extant, is the best proof of this. So he
immediately started again from the beginning, and so, instead of the
continuation, Capital was published in 1867. Book One: The Process of
Production of Capital, Hamburg, 1867.

While he was working on all three volumes of Capital - the second and
third volumes at least in draft - Marx finally again found an
opportunity for practical work in the world of labour. In 1864 the
International Working Men's Association was founded. Many people, in
particular Frenchmen, have arrogated to themselves the honour of
having been founders of this Association. It is obvious that something
like this cannot be founded by one person alone. But one thing is
certain: amongst all those participating there was only one who was
clear about what had to be done and what had to be founded; and this
was the man who back in 1848 had flung the call to the world:
Workingmen of all lands, unite!

At the foundation of the International Giuseppe Mazzini too attempted
to win and utilise the elements coming together for his mystical
conspiratorial democracy Dio e popolo. But the drafts for the statutes
and the Inaugural Address submitted in his name were rejected in
favour of those edited by Marx, and from this point Marx was sure of
the leadership of the International. He wrote all the promulgations of
the General Council, including most notably The Civil War in France
which appeared after the fall of the Paris Commune and was translated
into most European languages.

This is not the place to relate the history of the International. It
is enough to say that Marx was able to draft statutes with principled
motivation under which French Proudhonists, German Communists and
English New Trades Unionists could work together in unity, and that
nothing disturbed the harmony of the Association until there appeared
on the scene those people who have since then attempted to disrupt
every workingmen's movement, the anarchists under Bakunin. It is clear
that the strength of the Association lay solely in the previously
unheard-of attempt to unite the European and American proletariat; the
General Council had no means but moral ones, not even funds; instead
of the fabled "millions of the International" it generally had only
debts. Never, probably, has so much been achieved with so little

After the Commune the International became impossible in Europe. To
continue in the previous form the struggle against the governments and
against the bourgeoisie, which was equally excited in all countries,
would have demanded enormous sacrifices. Then there was the struggle
inside the Association itself against the anarchists and the
Proudhonist elements sympathising with them. Le jeu ne valait pas la
chandelle [The game was not worth the candle]. So after formal victory
over the anarchists had been achieved at the Hague Congress, Marx
proposed that the General Council be moved to New York.

The continued existence of the Association was thus guaranteed in case
changed conditions made necessary its re-establishment in Europe.
When, however, such conditions emerged, the old form was outdated; the
movement had far outgrown the old International.

Marx-Engels Correspondence 1864

Marx To Engels
In Manchester

[London,] 4 November 1864
Dear Frederick,

I was very pleased to hear from you again. ...

Some time ago, London workers sent an address to workers in Paris
about Poland and called upon them to act jointly in the matter.

For their part, the Parisians sent over a deputation headed by a
worker named Tolain, who was the real workers' candidate in the last
elections in Paris, a thoroughly nice fellow. (His compagnons were
quite nice lads, too.) A public meeting in St Martin's Hall was
called, for 28 September 1864, by Odger (shoemaker, President of the
local Council of All London Trades' Unions and, in particular, also of
the Trades' Unions Suffrage Agitation Society, is which is connected
with Bright) and Cremer, a mason and secretary of the Mason's Union.
(These two had arranged the big Trade-Union meeting on North America
chaired by Bright in St James's Hall, ditto the Garibaldi
manifestations.) A certain Le Lubez was sent to ask me if I would
participate pour les ouvriers allemands [for the German workers], and,
in particular, whether I was willing to provide a German worker to
speak at the meeting, etc. I provided them with Eccarius, who put on a
splendid performance, and I was also present myself in a non-speaking
capacity on the platform. I knew that on this occasion 'people who
really count' were appearing, both from London and from Paris, and I
therefore decided to waive my usual standing rule to decline any such

(Le Lubez is a young Frenchman, i.e. in his thirties; however, he grew
up in Jersey and London, speaks capital English and is a very good
intermediary between the French and English workers.) (Music teacher
and leçons of French.)

At the meeting, which was chock-full (for there is now evidently a
revival of the working-classes taking place), Major Wolff
(Thurn-Taxis, Garibaldi's adjutant) represented the London Italian
Workingmen's Society. It was resolved to found a 'Workingmen's
International Association', whose General Council is to have its seat
in London and is to 'Intermediate' between the workers' Societies in
Germany, Italy, France, and England. Ditto that a General Workingmen's
Congress was to be convened in Belgium in 1865. A Provisional
Committee was set up at the meeting, with Odger, Cremer and many
others, some of them former Chartists, former Owenites, etc.,
representing England, Major Wolff, Fontana, and other Italians
representing Italy, Le Lubez, etc. for France, Eccarius and myself for
Germany. The committee was empowered to co-opt as many people as it

So far so good. I attended the first meeting of the committee. A
Sub-Committee (including myself) was set up to draft a declaration des
principes and provisional rules. Indisposition prevented me from
attending the meeting of the Sub-Committee and the subsequent meeting
of the full committee.

At these two meetings, which I did not attend, - that of the
Sub-Committee and the subsequent one of the full committee - the
following occurred:

Major Wolff had submitted the regulations (statutes) of the Italian
Workers' Associations (which possess a central organisation, but, as
emerged later, are essentially associated Benefit Societies) to be
used by the new Association. I saw the stuff later. It was evidently a
concoction of Mazzini's, and that tells you in advance in what spirit
and phraseology the real question, the labour question, was dealt
with. As well as how the nationalities question intruded into it.

What is more, an old Owenite, Weston - now a manufacturer himself, a
very amiable and worthy man - had drawn up a programme full of extreme
confusion and of indescribable breadth.

The subsequent full committee meeting instructed the Sub-Committee to
remodel Weston's programme, ditto Wolff's regulations. Wolff himself
left to attend the congress of the Italian Workingmen's Associations
in Naples and persuade them to join the central association in London.

A further meeting of the Sub-Committee, which again I did not attend,
as I was informed of their rendezvous too late. At this meeting, 'une
déclaration des principes' and a revised version of Wolff's rules were
presented by Le Lubez and accepted by the Sub-Committee for submission
to the full committee. The full committee met on 18 October. Eccarius
wrote to me that it was a case of periculum in mora [danger in delay],
so I went along and was really shocked when I heard the worthy Le
Lubez read out a fearfully cliché-ridden, badly written and totally
unpolished preamble pretending to be a declaration of principles, with
Mazzini showing through the whole thing from beneath a crust of the
most insubstantial scraps of French socialism. What is more, the
Italian rules had by and large been adopted, whose aim, apart from all
their other faults, was really something quite impossible, a sort of
central government of the European working classes (with Mazzini in
the background, of course). I remonstrated mildly, and, after
prolonged debate. Eccarius proposed that the Sub-Committee should
subject the thing to further 'editing'. However, the sentiments
expressed in Lubez' declaration were carried.

Two days later, on 20 October, Cremer representing England, Fontana
(Italy) and Le Lubez met at my house. (Weston was unable to be
present.) I had not previously had the papers (Wolff's and Le Lubez)
in my hands, so could not prepare anything; but I was absolutely
determined that not one single line of the stuff should be allowed to
stand if I could help it. To gain time, I proposed that before we
'edited' the preamble, we ought to 'discuss' the Rules. This was done.
It was 1 o'clock in the morning before the first of the 40 Rules was
adopted. Cremer said (and that was my whole aim): we have nothing to
put before the committee that is to meet on 25 October. We must
postpone it until 1 November. But the Sub-Committee can meet on 27
October and attempt to reach a definite conclusion. This was agreed
and the 'papers' were 'bequeathed' to me for my perusal.

I could see it was impossible to make anything out of the stuff. In
order to justify the extremely peculiar way in which I intended to
edit the sentiments that had already been 'carried', I wrote an
Address to the Working Classes (which was not in the original plan; a
sort of review of the adventures of the working classes since 1845);
on the pretext that all the necessary facts were contained in this
'Address' and that we ought not to repeat the same things three times
over, I altered the whole preamble, threw out the declaration des
principes and finally replaced the 40 Rules by 10. Insofar as
International politics is mentioned in the 'Address', I refer to
countries and not to nationalities, and denounce Russia, not the
minores gentium [smaller nations]. The Sub-Committee adopted all my
proposals. I was, however, obliged to insert two sentences about
'duty' and 'right', and ditto about 'Truth, Morality and Justice' in
the preamble to the rules, but these are so placed that they can do no

At the meeting of the General Committee my 'Address', etc., was
adopted with great enthusiasm (unanimously). The debate on the form of
publication, etc., is to take place next Tuesday. Le Lubez has a copy
of the 'Address' for translation into French and Fontana one for
translation into Italian. (For a start there is a weekly called
Bee-Hive, edited by Trade Unionist Potter, a sort of Moniteur.) I am
to translate the stuff into German myself.

It was very difficult to frame the thing so that our view should
appear in a form that would make it acceptable to the present outlook
of the workers' movement. In a couple of weeks, the same people will
be having meetings on the franchise with Bright and Cobden. It will
take time before the revival of the movement allows the old boldness
of language to be used. We must be fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
[strong in deed, mild in manner]. You will get the stuff as soon as it
is printed.

Bakunin sends his regards. He left today for Italy where he is living
(Florence). I saw him yesterday for the first time in 16 years. I must
say I liked him very much, more so than previously. With regard to the
Polish movement, he said the Russian government had needed the
movement to keep Russia itself quiet, but had not counted on anything
like an 18-month struggle. They had thus provoked the affair in
Poland. Poland had been defeated by two things, the influence of
Bonaparte and, secondly, the hesitation of the Polish aristocracy in
openly and unambiguously proclaiming peasant socialism from the
outset. From now on - after the collapse of the Polish affair - he
(Bakunin) will only involve himself in the socialist movement.

On the whole, he is one of the few people whom after 16 years I find
to have moved forwards and not backwards. I also discussed Urquhart's
denunciations with him. (Apropos: the International Association will
probably lead to a rupture between myself and these friends!) He
inquired a great deal after yourself and Lupus. When I told him of the
latter's death, he said straightaway that the movement had suffered an
irreplaceable loss.

4. Crisis. By no means burnt out on the Continent yet (esp. France).
Incidentally, what the crises have lost in intensity, they have now
gained in frequency.


K. M.

The International Workingmen's Association 1864

General Rules, October 1864


Written: between October 21 and 27, 1864;
First published: in The Bee-Hive Newspaper, November 12, 1864, and in
the pamphelt Address and Provisional Rules of the Working Men's
International Association ..., London, November 1864.



That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the
working classes themselves, that the struggle for the emancipation of
the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and
monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all
class rule;

That the economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer
of the means of labor - that is, the source of life - lies at the
bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental
degradation, and political dependence;

That the economical emancipation of the working classes is therefore
the great end to which every political movement ought to be
subordinate as a means;

That all efforts aiming at the great end hitherto failed from the want
of solidarity between the manifold divisions of labor in each country,
and from the absence of a fraternal bond of union between the working
classes of different countries;

That the emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a national, but
a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society
exists, and depending for its solution on the concurrence, practical
and theoretical, of the most advanced countries;

That the present revival of the working classes in the most
industrious countries of Europe, while it raises a new hope, gives
solemn warning against a relapse into the old errors, and calls for
the immediate combination of the still disconnected movements;

For these reasons -

The International Working Men's Association has been founded.

It declares:

That all societies and individuals adhering to it will acknowledge
truth, justice, and morality as the basis of their conduct toward each
other and toward all men, without regard to color, creed, or

That it acknowledges no rights without duties, no duties without rights;

And, in this spirit, the following Rules have been drawn up.

This Association is established to afford a central medium of
communication and co-operation between workingmen's societies existing
in different countries and aiming at the same end; viz., the
protection, advancement, and complete emancipation of the working

The name of the society shall be "The International Working Men's Association."
There shall annually meet a General Working Men's Congress, consisting
of delegates of the branches of the Association. The Congress will
have to proclaim the common aspirations of the working class, take the
measures required for the successful working of the International
Association, and appoint the General Council of the society.

Each Congress appoints the time and place of meeting for the next
Congress. The delegates assemble at the appointed time and place,
without any special invitation.

The General Council may, in case of need, change the place, but has no
power to postpone the time of the General Council annually. The
Congress appoints the seat and elects the members of the General
Council annually. The General Council thus elected shall have power to
add to the number of its members.

On its annual meetings, the General Congress shall receive a public
account of the annual transactions of the General Council. The latter
may, in case of emergency, convoke the General Congress before the
regular yearly term.

The General Council shall consist of workingmen from the different
countries represented in the International Association. It shall, from
its own members, elect the officers necessary for the transaction of
business, such as a treasurer, a general secretary, corresponding
secretaries for the different countries, etc.

The General Council shall form an international agency between the
different and local groups of the Association, so that the workingmen
in one country be consistently informed of the movements of their
class in every other country; that an inquiry into the social state of
the different countries of Europe be made simultaneously, and under a
common direction; that the questions of general interest mooted in one
society be ventilated by all; and that when immediate practical steps
should be needed - as, for instance, in case of international quarrels
- the action of the associated societies be simultaneous and uniform.

Whenever it seems opportune, the General Council shall take the
initiative of proposals to be laid before the different national or
local societies. To facilitate the communications, the General Council
shall publish periodical reports.

Since the success of the workingmen's movement in each country cannot
be secured but by the power of union and combination, while, on the
other hand, the usefulness of the International General Council must
greatly depend on the circumstance whether it has to deal with a few
national centres of workingmen's associations, or with a great number
of small and disconnected local societies - the members of the
International Association shall use their utmost efforts to combine
the disconnected workingmen's societies of their respective countries
into national bodies, represented by central national organs. It is
self-understood, however, that the appliance of this rule will depend
upon the peculiar laws of each country, and that, apart from legal
obstacles, no independent local society shall be precluded from
corresponding directly with the General Council.

Every section has the right to appoint its own secretary corresponding
directly with the General Council.

Everybody who acknowledges and defends the principles of the
International Working Men's Association is eligible to become a
member. Every branch is responsible for the integrity of the members
it admits.
Each member of the International Association, on removing his domicile
from one country to another, will receive the fraternal support of the
Associated Working Men.

While united in a perpetual bond of fraternal co-operation, the
workingmen's societies joining the International Association will
preserve their existent organizations intact.

The present Rules may be revised by each Congress, provided that
two-thirds of the delegates present are in favor of such revision.

Everything not provided for in the present Rules will be supplied by
special Regulations, subject to the revision of every Congress.

Interview with Karl Marx
Head of L'Internationale
Revolt of Labour Against Capital - the Two Faces of L'Internationale-
Transformation of Society - Its Progress in the United States
by R. Landor

London, July 3 - You have asked me to find out something about the
International Association, and I have tried to do so. The enterprise
is a difficult one just now. London is indisputably the headquarters
of the Association, but the English people have got a scare, and smell
International in everything as King James smelled gunpowder after the
famous plot. The consciousness of the Society has naturally increased
with the suspiciousness of the public; and if those who guide it have
a secret to keep, they are of the stamp of men who keep a secret well.
I have called on two of their leading members, have talked with one
freely, and I here give you the substance of my conversation. ...Here
was the hand that would smite hard when the time came, and as to the
head that plans, I think I saw that too, in my interview with Dr. Karl

Dr. Karl Marx is a German doctor of philosophy, with a German breadth
of knowledge derived both from observation of the living world and
from books. I should conclude that he has never been a worker in the
ordinary sense of the term. His surroundings and appearance are those
of a well-to-do man of the middle class. The drawing room into which I
was ushered on the night of the interview would have formed very
comfortable quarters for a thriving stockbroker who had made his
competence and was now beginning to make his fortune. It was comfort
personified, the apartment of a man of taste of easy means, but with
nothing in it peculiarly characteristic of its owner. A fine album of
Rhine views on the table, however, gave a clue to his nationality. I
peered cautiously into the vase on the sidetable for a bomb. I sniffed
for petroleum, but the smell was the smell of roses. I crept back
stealthily to my seat, and moodily awaited the worst.

He has entered and greeted me cordially, and we are sitting face to
face. Yes, I am tete-a-tete with the revolution incarnate, with the
real founder and guiding spirit of the International Society, with the
author of the address in which capital was told that is it warred on
labor, it must expect to have its house burned down about its ears -
in a word, with the Apologist for the Commune
of Paris. Do you remember the bust of Socrates? The man who died
rather than profess his belief in the Gods of the time - the man with
the fine sweep of profile for the forehead running meanly at the end
into a little snub, curled-up feature, like a bisected pothook, that
formed the nose. Take this bust in your mind's eye, color the beard
black, dashing it here and there with puffs of gray; clap the head
thus made on a portly body of the middle height, and the Doctor is
before you. Throw a veil over the upper part of the face, and you
might be in the company of a born vestryman. Reveal the essential
feature, the immense brown, and you know at once that you have to deal
with that most formidable of all composite individual forces - a
dreamer who thinks, a thinker who dreams.

I went straight to my business. The world, I said, seemed to be in the
dark about the International, hating it very much, but not able to say
clearly what thing it hated. Some, who professed to have peered
further into the gloom than their neighbors, declared that they had
made out a sort of Janus figure with a fair, honest workman's smile on
one of its faces, and on the other, a murderous conspirator's scowl.
Would he light up the case of mystery in which theory dwelt?

The professor laughed, chuckled a little I fancied, at the thought
that we were so frightened of him. "There is no mystery to clear up,
dear sir," he began, in a very polished form of the Hans Breitmann
dialect, "except perhaps the mystery of human stupidity in those who
perpetually ignore the fact that out Association is a public one, and
that the fullest reports of its proceedings are published for all who
care to read them. You may buy our rules for a penny, and a shilling
laid out in pamphlets will teach you almost as much about us as we
know ourselves.

R. [Landor]: Almost - yes, perhaps so; but will not the something I
shall not know constitute the all-important reservation? To be quite
frank with you, and to put the case as it strikes an outside observer,
this general claim of depreciation of you must mean something more
than the ignorant ill will of the multitude. And it is still pertinent
to ask, even after what you have told me, what is the International

Dr. M.: You have only to look at the individuals of which it is
composed - workmen.

R.: Yes, but the soldier need be no exponent of the statecraft that
sets him in motion. I know some of your members, and I can believe
that they are not of the stuff of which conspirators are made.
Besides, a secret shared by a million men would be no secret at all.
But what if these were only the instruments in the hands of a bold,
and, I hope you will forgive me for adding, not overscrupulous

Dr. M.: There is nothing to prove.

R.: The last Paris insurrection?

Dr. M.: I demand firstly the proof that there was any plot at all -
that anything happened that was not the legitimate effect of the
circumstances of the moment; or the plot granted, I demand the proofs
of the participation in it of the International Association.

R.: The presence of the communal body of so many members of the Association.

Dr. M.: Then it was a plot of the Freemasons, too, for their share in
the work as individuals was by no means a slight one. I should not be
surprised, indeed, to find the Pope setting down the whole
insurrection to their account. But try another explanation. The
insurrection in Paris was made by the workmen of Paris. The ablest of
the workmen must necessarily have been its leaders and administration,
but the ablest of the workmen happen also to be members of the
International Association. Yet, the Association, as such, may be in no
way responsible for their action.

R.: It will seem otherwise to the world. People talk of secret
instruction from London, and even grants of money. Can it be affirmed
that the alleged openness of the Association's proceedings precludes
all secrecy of communication?

Dr. M.: What association ever formed carried on its work without
private as well as public agencies? But to talk of secret instruction
from London, as of decrees in the matter of faith and morals from some
centre of papal domination and intrigue, is wholly to misconceive the
nature of the International. This would imply a centralized form of
government for the International, whereas the real form is designedly
that which gives the greatest play to local energy and independence.
In fact, the International is not properly a government for the
working class at all. It is a bond of union rather than a controlling

R.: And of union to what end?

Dr. M.: The economical emancipation of the working class by the
conquest of political power. The use of that political power to the
attainment of social ends. It is necessary that our aims should be
thus comprehensive to include every form of working-class activity. To
have made them of a special character would have been to adapt them to
the needs of one section - one nation of workmen alone. But how could
all men be asked to unite to further the objects of a few? To have
done that, the Association must have forfeited its title to
International. The Association does not dictate the form of political
movements; it only requires a pledge as to their end. It is a network
of affiliated societies spreading all over the world of labor. In each
part of the world, some special aspect of the problem presents itself,
and the workmen there address themselves to its consideration in their
own way. Combinations among workmen cannot be absolutely identical in
detail in Newcastle and in Barcelona, in London and in Berlin. In
England, for instance, the way to show political power lies open to
the working class. Insurrection would be madness where peaceful
agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work. In France, a
hundred laws of repression and a mortal antagonism between classes
seem to necessitate the violent solution of social war. The choices of
that solution is the affair of the working classes of that country.
The International does not presume to dictate in the matter and hardly
to advise. But to every movement it accords its sympathy and its aid
within the limits assigned by its own laws.

R.: And what is the nature of that aid?

Dr. M.: To give an example, one of the commonest forms of the movement
for emancipation is that of strikes. Formerly, when a strike took
place in one country, it was defeated by the importation of workmen
from another. The International has nearly stopped all that. It
receives information of the intended strike, it spreads that
information among its members, who at once see that for them the seat
of the struggle must be forbidden ground. The masters are thus left
alone to reckon with their men. In most cases, the men require no
other aid than that. Their own subscriptions, or those of the
societies to which they are more immediately affiliated, supply them
with funds, but should the pressure upon them become too heavy, and
the strike be one of which the Association approves, their necessities
are supplied out of the common purse. By these means, a strike of the
cigar makers of Barcelona was brought to a victorious issue the other
day. But the Society has not interest in strikes, though it supports
them under certain conditions. It cannot possibly gain by them in a
pecuniary point of view, but it may easily lose. Let us sum it all up
in a word. The working classes remain poor amid the increase of
wealth, wretched amid the increase of luxury. Their material privation
dwarfs their moral as well as their physical stature. They cannot rely
on others for a remedy. It has become then with them an imperative
necessity to take their own case in hand. They must revive the
relations between themselves and the capitalists and landlords, and
that means they must transform society. This is the general end of
every known workmen's organization; land and labor leagues, trade and
friendly societies, co-operative production are but means toward it.
To establish a perfect solidarity between these organizations is the
business of the International Association. Its influence is beginning
to be felt everywhere. Two papers spread its views in Spain, three in
Germany, the same number in Austria and in Holland, six in Belgium,
and six in Switzerland. And now that I have told you what the
International is, you may, perhaps, be in a position to form your own
opinion as to its pretended plots.

R.: And Mazzini, is he a member of your body?

Dr. M.: (laughing) Ah, no. We should have made but little progress if
we had not got beyond the range of his ideas.

R.: You surprise me. I should certainly have thought that he
represented most advanced views.

Dr. M.: He represents nothing better than the old idea of a
middle-class republic. We want no part of the middle class. He has
fallen as far to the rear of the modern movement as the German
professors, who, nevertheless, are still considered in Europe as the
apostles of the cultured democratism of the future. They were so, at
one time - before '48, perhaps, when the German middle class, in the
English sense, had scarcely attained its proper development. But now
they have gone over bodily to the reaction, and the proletariat knows
them no more.

R.: Some people have thought they saw signs of a positivist element in
your organization.

Dr. M.: No such thing. We have positivists among us, and others not of
our body who work as well. But this is not by virtue of their
philosophy, which will have nothing to do with popular government, as
we understand it, and which seeks only to put a new hierarchy in place
of the old one.

R.: It seems to me, then, that the leaders of the new international
movement have had to form a philosophy as well as an association

Dr. M.: Precisely. It is hardly likely, for instance, that we could
hope to prosper in our war against capital if we derive our tactics,
say, from the political economy of Mill. He has traced one kind of
relationship between labor and capital. We hope to show that it is
possible to establish another.

R.: And the United States?

Dr. M.: The chief concerns of our activity are for the present among
the old societies of Europe. Many circumstances have hitherto tended
to prevent the labor problem from assuming an all-absorbing importance
in the United States. But they are rapidly disappearing, and it is
rapidly coming to the front there with the growth, as in Europe, of a
laboring class distinct from the rest of the community and divorced
from capital.

R.: It would seem that in this country the hoped-for solution,
whatever it may be, will be attained without the violent means of
revolution. The English system of agitating by platform and press,
until minorities become converted into majorities, is a hopeful sign.

Dr. M.: I am not so sanguine on that point as you. The English middle
class has always shown itself willing enough to accept the verdict of
the majority, so long as it enjoyed the monopoly of the voting power.
But, mark me, as soon as it finds itself outvoted on what it considers
vital questions, we shall see here a new slaveowners's war.

I have given you, as well as I can remember them, the heads of my
conversation with this remarkable man. I shall leave you to form your
own conclusions. Whatever may be said for or against the probability
of its complicity with the movement of the Commune, we may be assured
that in the International Association, the civilized world has a new
power in its midst, with which it must soon come to a reckoning for
good or ill.

New York World, July 18, 1871
Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly, August 12, 1871
Transcribed in 1996 by Zodiac
Html Markup in 1999 by Brian Baggins

Marx-Engels Internet Archive

Interview with Karl Marx
by H.
Chicago Tribune, January 5 1879

London, December 18 [1878] - In a little villa at Haverstock Hill, the
northwest portion of London, lives Karl Marx, the cornerstone of
modern socialism. He was exiled from his native country - Germany - in
1844, for propagating revolutionary theories. In 1848, he returned,
but in a few months was again exiled. He then took up his abode in
Paris, but his political theories procured his expulsion from that
city in 1849, and since that year his headquarters have been in
London. His convictions have caused him trouble from the beginning.
Judging from the appearance of his home, they certainly have not
brought him affluence. Persistently during all these years he has
advocated his views with an earnestness which undoubtedly springs from
a firm belief in them, and, however much we may deprecate their
propagation, we cannot but respect to a certain extent the self-denial
of the now venerable exile.

Our correspondent has called upon him twice or thrice, and each time
the Doctor was found in his library, with a book in one hand and a
cigarette in the other. He must be over seventy years of age. [Marx
was sixty.] His physique is well knit, massive, erect. He has the head

of a man of intellect, and the features of a cultivated Jew. His hair
and beard are long, and iron-gray in color. His eyes are glittering
black, shaded by a pair of bushy eyebrows. To a stranger he shows
extreme caution. A foreigner can generally gain admission; but the
ancient-looking German woman [Helene Demuth] who waits upon visitors
has instructions to admit none who hail from the Fatherland, unless
they bring letters of introduction. Once into his library, however,
and having fixed his one eyeglass in the corner of his eye, in order
to take your intellectual breadth and depth, so to speak, he loses
that self-restraint, and unfolds to you a knowledge of men and things
throughout the world apt to interest one. And his conversation does
not run in one groove, but is as varied as are the volumes upon his
library shelves. A man can generally be judged by the books he reads,
and you can form your own conclusions when I tell you a casual glance
revealed Shakespeare, Dickens, Thackeray, Moliere, Racine, Montaigne,
Bacon, Goethe, Voltaire, Paine; English, American, French blue books;
works political and philosophical in Russian, German, Spanish,
Italian, etc., etc. During my conversation I was struck with

His Intimacy with American Questions
which have been uppermost during the past twenty years. His knowledge
of them, and the surprising accuracy with which he criticized our
national and state legislation, impressed upon my mind the fact that
he must have derived his information from inside sources. But, indeed,
this knowledge is not confined to America, but is spread over the face
of Europe. When speaking of socialism he does not indulge in those
melodramatic flights generally attributed to him, but dwells upon "the
emancipation of the human race" with a gravity and an earnestness
indicating a firm conviction in the realization, if not in this
century, at least in the next.

Perhaps Dr. Karl Marx is better known in America as the author of
Capital, and the founder of the International Society, or at least its
most prominent pillar. In the interview which follows, you will see
what he says of this Society as it at present exists. However, in the
meantime I will give you a few extracts from the printed general rules
of The International Society published in 1871, by order of the
General Council, from which you can form an impartial judgment of its
aims and ends. The Preamble sets forth "that the emancipation of the
working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves;
that the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means
not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal
rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule; that the
economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of the
means of labor - that is, the sources of life - lies at the bottom of
servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation,
and political dependence; that all efforts aiming at" the universal
emancipation of the working classes "have hitherto failed from want of
solidarity between the manifold divisions of labor in each country,"
and the Preamble calls for "the immediate combination of the
still-disconnected movements." It goes on to say that the
International Association acknowledges "no rights without duties, no
duties without rights" - thus making every member a worker. The
Association was formed at London "to afford a central medium of
communication and cooperation between the workingmen's societies in
the different countries," aiming at the same end, namely: "the
protection, advancement, and complete emancipation of the working
classes." "Each member," the document further says, "of the
International Association, on removing his domicile from one country
to another, will receive the fraternal support of the associated

The Society Consists of a general Congress, which meets annually, a
general Council, which forms "an international agency between the
different national and local groups of the Association, so that the
workingmen in one country can be constantly informed of the movements
of their class in every other country." This Council receives and acts
upon the applications of new branches or sections to join the
International, decides differences arising between the sections, and,
in fact, to use an American phrase, "runs the machine." The expenses
of the General Council are defrayed by an annual contribution of an
English penny per member. Then come the federal councils or
committees, and local sections, in the various countries. The federal
councils are bound to send one report at least every month to the
General Council, and every three months a report on the administration
and financial state of their respective branches. whenever attacks
against the International are published, the nearest branch or
committee is bound to send at once a copy of such publication to the
General Council. The formation of female branches among the working
classes is recommended.

The General Council comprises the following: R. Applegarth, M.T. Boon,
Frederick Bradnick, G.H. Buttery, E. Delahaye, Eugene Dupont (on
mission), William Hales, G. Harris, Hurliman, Jules Johannard, Harriet
Law, Frederick Lessner, Lochner, Charles Longuet, C. Martin, Zevy
Maurice, Henry Mayo, George Milner, Charles Murray, Pfander, John
Pach, Ruhl Sadler, Cowell Stepney, Alfred Taylor, W. Townshend, E.
Vaillant, John Weston. The corresponding secretaries for the various
countries are: Leo Frankel, for Austria and Hungary; A. Herman,
Belgium; T. Mottershead, Denmark; A. Serrailler, France; Karl Marx,
Germany and Russia; Charles Rochat, Holland; J.P. McDonell, Ireland;
Frederick Engels, Italy and Spain; Walery Wroblewski, Poland; Hermann
Jung, Switzerland; J.G. Eccarius, United States; Le Moussu, for French
branches of United States.

During my visit to Dr. Marx, I alluded to the platform given by J.C.
Bancroft Davis in his official report of 1877 as the clearest and most
concise exposition of socialism that I had seen. He said it was taken
from the report of the socialist reunion at Gotha, Germany, in May,
1875. The translation was incorrect, he said, and he Volunteered
Corrections which I append as he dictated:

First: Universal, direct, and secret suffrage for all males over
twenty years, for all elections, municipal and state.

Second: Direct legislation by the people. War and peace to be made by
direct popular vote.

Third: Universal obligation to militia duty. No standing army.

Fourth: Abolition of all special legislation regarding press laws and
public meetings.

Fifth: Legal remedies free of expense. Legal proceedings to be
conducted by the people.

Sixth: Education to be by the state - general, obligatory, and free.
Freedom of science and religion.

Seventh: All indirect taxes to be abolished. Money to be raised for
state and municipal purposes by direct progressive income tax.

Eighth: Freedom of combination among the working classes.

Ninth: The legal day of labor for men to be defined. The work of women
to be limited, and that of children to be abolished.

Tenth: Sanitary laws for the protection of life and health of
laborers, and regulation of their dwelling and places of labor, to be
enforced by persons selected by them.

Eleventh: Suitable provision respecting prison labor. In Mr. Bancroft
Davis' report there is

A Twelfth Clause, the most important of all, which reads: "State aid
and credit for industrial societies, under democratic direction." I
asked the Doctor why he omitted this, and he replied:

"When the reunion took place at Gotha, in 1875, there existed a
division among the Social Democrats. The one wing were partisans of
Lassalle, the others those who had accepted in general the program of
the International organization, and were called the Eisenach party.
The twelfth point was not placed on the platform, but placed in the
general introduction by way of concession to the Lassallians.
Afterwards it was never spoken of. Mr. Davis does not say that is was
placed in the program as a compromise having no particular
significance, but gravely puts it in as one of the cardinal principles
of the program."

"But," I said, "socialists generally look upon the transformation of
the means of labor into the common property of society as the grand
climax of the movement."

"Yes; we say that this will be the outcome of the movement, but it
will be a question of time, of education, and the institution of
higher social status."

"This platform," I remarked, "applies only to Germany and one or two
other countries."

"Ah!" he returned, "if you draw your conclusions from nothing but
this, you know nothing of the activity of the party. Many of its
points have no significance outside of Germany. Spain, Russia,
England, and America have platforms suited to their peculiar
difficulties. The only similarity in them is the end to be attained."

"And that is the supremacy of labor?"

"That is the Emancipation of Labor"

"Do European socialists look upon the movement in America as a serious one?"

"Yes: it is the natural outcome of the country's development. It has
been said that the movement has been imported by foreigners. When
labor movements became disagreeable in England, fifty years ago, the
same thing was said; and that was long before socialism was spoken of.
In American, since 1857, only has the labor movement become
conspicuous. Then trade unions began to flourish; then trades
assemblies were formed, in which the workers in different industries
united; and after that came national labor unions. If you consider
this chronological progress, you will see that socialism has sprung up
in that country without the aid of foreigners, and was merely caused
by the concentration of capital and the changed relations between the
workmen and employers."

"Now," asked our correspondent, "what has socialism done so far?"

"Two things," he returned. "Socialists have shown the general
universal struggle between capital and labor - The Cosmopolitan
Chapter in one word - and consequently tried to bring about an
understanding between the workmen in the different countries, which
became more necessary as the capitalists became more cosmopolitan in
hiring labor, pitting foreign against native labor not only in
America, but in England, France, and Germany. International relations
sprang up at once between workingmen in the three different countries,
showing that socialism was not merely a local, but an international
problem, to be solved by the international action of workmen. The
working classes move spontaneously, without knowing what the ends of
the movement will be. The socialists invent no movement, but merely
tell the workmen what its character and its ends will be."

"Which means the overthrowing of the present social system," I interrupted.

"This system of land and capital in the hands of employers, on the one
hand," he continued, "and the mere working power in the hands of the
laborers to sell a commodity, we claim is merely a historical phase,
which will pass away and give place to A Higher Social Condition.

We see everywhere a division of society. The antagonism of the two
classes goes hand in hand with the development of the industrial
resources of modern countries. From a socialistic standpoint the means
already exist to revolutionize the present historical phase. Upon
trade unions, in many countries, have been built political
organizations. In America the need of an independent workingmen's
party has been made manifest. They can no longer trust politicians.
Rings and cliques have seized upon the legislatures, and politics has
been made a trade. But America is not alone in this, only its people
are more decisive than Europeans. Things come to the surface quicker.
There is less cant and hypocrisy that there is on this side of the

I asked him to give me a reason for the rapid growth of the
socialistic party in Germany, when he replied:

"The present socialistic party came last. Theirs was not the utopian
scheme which made headway in France and England. The German mind is
given to theorizing, more than that of other peoples. From previous
experience the Germans evolved something practical. This modern
capitalistic system, you must recollect, is quite new in Germany in
comparison to other states. Questions were raised which had become
almost antiquated in France and England, and political influences to
which these states had yielded sprang into life when the working
classes of Germany had become imbued with socialistic theories.
therefore, from the beginning almost of modern industrial development,
they have formed an Independent Political Party.

They had their own representatives in the German parliament. There was
no party to oppose the policy of the government, and this devolved
upon them. To trace the course of the party would take a long time;
but I may say this: that, if the middle classes of Germany were not
the greatest cowards, distinct from the middle classes of America and
England, all the political work against the government should have
been done by them."

I asked him a question regarding the numerical strength of the
Lassallians in the ranks of the Internationalists.

"The party of Lassalle," he replied, "does not exist. Of course there
are some believers in our ranks, but the number is small. Lassalle
anticipated our general principles. When he commenced to move after
the reaction of 1848, he fancied that he could more successfully
revive the movement by advocating cooperation of the workingmen in
industrial enterprises. It was to stir them into activity. He looked
upon this merely as a means to the real end of the movement. I have
letters from him to this effect."

"You would call it his nostrum?"

"Exactly. He called upon Bismarck, told him what he designed, and
Bismarck encouraged Lassalle's course at that time in every possible

"What was his object?"

"He wished to use the working classes as a set-off against the middle
classes who instigated the troubles of 1848."

"It is said that you are the head and front of socialism, Doctor, and
from your villa here pull the wires of all the associations,
revolutions, etc., now going on. What do you say about it?"

The old gentleman smiled: "I know it."

"It Is Very Absurd yet it has a comic side. For two months previous to
the attempt of Hoedel, Bismarck complained in his North German Gazette
that I was in league with Father Beck, the leader of the Jesuit
movement, and that we were keeping the socialist movement in such a
condition that he could do nothing with it."

"But your International Society in London directs the movement?"

"The International Society has outlived its usefulness and exists no
longer. It did exist and direct the movement; but the growth of
socialism of late years has been so great that its existence has
become unnecessary. Newspapers have been started in the various
countries. These are interchanged. That is about the only connection
the parties in the different countries have with one another. The
International Society, in the first instance, was created to bring the
workmen together, and show the advisability of effecting organization
among their various nationalities. The interests of each party in the
different countries have no similarity. This specter of the
Internationalist leaders sitting at London is a mere invention. It is
true that we dictated to foreign societies when the Internationalist
organization was first accomplished. We were forced to exclude some
sections in New York, among them one in which Madam Woodhull was
conspicuous. that was in 1871. there are several American politicians
- I will not name them - who wish to trade in the movement. They are
well known to American socialists."

"You and your followers, Dr. Marx, have been credited with all sorts
of incendiary speeches against religion. Of course you would like to
see the whole system destroyed, root and branch."

"We know," he replied after a moment's hesitation, "that violent
measures against religion are nonsense; but this is an opinion: as
socialism grows, Religion Will Disappear.

Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which
education must play a part."

"The Reverend Joseph Cook, of Boston - you know him -"

"We have heard of him, a very badly informed man upon the subject of socialism."

"In a lecture lately upon the subject, he said, 'Karl Marx is credited
now with saying that, in the United States, and in Great Britain, and
perhaps in France, a reform of labor will occur without bloody
revolution, but that blood must be shed in Germany, and in Russia, and
in Italy, and in Austria.'"

"No socialist," remarked the Doctor, smiling, "need predict that there
will be a bloody revolution in Russia, Germany, Austria, and possibly
Italy if the Italians keep on in the policy they are now pursuing. The
deeds of the French Revolution may be enacted again in those
countries. That is apparent to any political student. But those
revolutions will be made by the majority. No revolution can be made by
a party, but By a Nation".

"The reverend gentleman alluded to," I remarked, "gave an extract from
a letter which he said you addressed to the Communists of Paris in
1871. Here it is:

'We are as yet but 3,000,000 at most. In twenty years we shall be
50,000,000 - 100,000,000 perhaps. Then the world will belong to us,
for it will be not only Paris, Lyon, Marseilles, which will rise
against odious capital, but Berlin, Munich, Dresden, London,
Liverpool, Manchester, Brussels, St. Petersburg, New York - in short,
the whole world. And before this new insurrection, such as history has
not yet known, the past will disappear like a hideous nightmare; for
the popular conflagration, kindled at a hundred points at once, will
destroy even its memory!'

Now, Doctor, I suppose you admit the authorship of that extract?"

"I never wrote a word of it. I never write Such Melodramatic Nonsense.

I am very careful what I do write. That was put in Le Figaro, over my
signature, about that time. There were hundreds of the same kind of
letters flying about them. I wrote to the London Times and declared
they were forgeries; but if I denied everything that has been said and
written of me, I would require a score of secretaries."

"But you have written in sympathy with the Paris Communists?"

"Certainly I have, in consideration of what was written of them in
leading articles; but the correspondence from Paris in English papers
is quite sufficient to refute the blunders propagated in editorials.
The Commune killed only about sixty people; Marshal MacMahon and his
slaughtering army killed over 60,000. There has never been a movement
so slandered as that of the Commune."

"Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers
advocate assassination and bloodshed?"

"No great movement," Karl answered, "has ever been inaugurated Without

"The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured
France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same
means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of
this, and as for assassination," he went on to say, "it is not a new
thing, I need scarcely say. Orsini tried to kill Napoleon; kings have
killed more than anybody else; the Jesuits have killed; the Puritans
killed at the time of Cromwell. These deeds were all done or attempted
before socialism was born. Every attempt, however, now made upon a
royal or state individual is attributed to socialism. The socialists
would regret very much the death of the German Emperor at the present
time. He is very useful where he is; and Bismarck has done more for
the cause than any other statesman, by driving things to extremes."

I asked Dr. Marx What He Thought of Bismarck.

He replied that "Napoleon was considered a genius until he fell; then
he was called a fool. Bismarck will follow in his wake. He began by
building up a despotism under the plea of unification. His course has
been plain to all. The last move is but an attempted imitation of a
coup d'etat; but it will fail. The socialists of Germany, as of
France, protested against the war of 1870 as merely dynastic. They
issued manifestoes foretelling the German people, if they allowed the
pretended war of defense to be turned into a war of conquest, they
would be punished by the establishment of military despotism and the
ruthless oppression of the productive masses. The Social-Democratic
party in Germany, thereupon holding meetings and publishing
manifestoes for an honorable peace with France, were at once
prosecuted by the Prussian Government, and many of the leaders
imprisoned. Still their deputies alone dared to protest, and very
vigorously too, in the German Reichstag, against the forcible
annexation of French provinces. However, Bismarck carried his policy
by force, and people spoke of the genius of a Bismarck. The war was
fought, and when he could make no conquests, he was called upon for
original ideas, and he has signally failed. The people began to lose
faith in him. His popularity was on the wane. He needs money, and the
state needs it. Under a sham constitution he has taxed the people for
his military and unification plans until he can tax them no longer,
and now he seeks to do it with no constitution at all. For the purpose
of levying as he chooses, he has raised the ghost of socialism, and
has done everything in his power To Create an Emeute."

"You have continual advice from Berlin?"

"Yes," he said; "my friends keep me well advised. It is in a perfectly
quiet state, and Bismarck is disappointed. He has expelled forty-eight
prominent men - among them Deputies Hasselman and Fritsche and Rackow,
Bauman, and Adler, of the Freie Presse. These men kept the workmen of
Berlin quiet. Bismarck knew this. He also knew that there were 75,000
workmen in that city upon the verge of starvation. Once those leaders
were gone, he was confident that the mob would rise, and that would be
the cue for a carnival of slaughter. The screws would then be put upon
the whole German Empire; his petty theory of blood and iron would then
have full sway, and taxation could be levied to any extent. So far no
emeute has occurred, and he stands today confounded at the situation
and the ridicule of all statesmen."

Transcribed in 1996 by Zodiac
Html Markup in 1999 by Brian Baggins.

LabourPartyPraxis discussion - subscribe