Letter to Karl Marx, after September 18, 1846

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

To Marx in Brussels

Only an extract of this letter has survived. The date of this letter was established by the fact that this extract and Engels’ letter to Marx of 18 September 1846 deal with the same project, the project of starting a company for the publication of socialist and communist literature.

A reference to the two volumes of a quarterly journal the publication of which was negotiated in 1845 and 1846 with a number of Westphalian socialists, the publishers Julius Meyer and Rudolph Rempel among others. Marx and Engels intended to publish in it their criticism of The German Ideology which they started to write in the autumn of 1845. It was also planned to publish a number of polemical works by their fellow-thinkers, in the first place those containing criticism of German philosophical literature and the works of the ‘true socialists’.

In November 1845 Hess reached an agreement with Meyer and Rempel on financing the publication of two volumes of the quarterly. Further negotiations were conducted by Weydemeyer, who visited Brussels in February 1846 and returned to Germany in April on the instruction of the Brussels Communist Correspondence Committee. In a letter to the Committee of 30 April 1846 from Schildesche (Westphalia) he wrote that no headway was being made and that he proposed that Meyer should form a joint-stock company in Limburg (Holland), as in Germany manuscripts of less than 20 printed sheets were subject to preliminary censorship. He also recommended that Marx should sign a contract with the Brussels publisher and bookseller C. G. Vogler for the distribution of the quarterly and other publications. The contract was not concluded because Vogler could not assume even part of the expenses.

Weydemeyer continued his efforts, but succeeded only in getting from Meyer a guarantee for the publication of one volume. But as early as July 1846 Meyer and Rempel refused their promised assistance on the pretext of financial difficulties, the actual reason being differences in principle between Marx and Engels on the one hand and the champions of ‘true socialism’ on the other, whose views both publishers shared.

Marx and Engels did not abandon their hopes of publishing the works ready for the quarterly, if only by instalments, but their attempts failed. The extant manuscript of The German Ideology was first published in full in the Soviet Union in 1932.

In the summer of 1846 the project found support among the members of the socialist movement in Cologne (Bürgers, d'Ester, Hess). Some German bourgeois sympathising with socialism were also expected to finance the publication. This and other similar projects were repeatedly discussed by Marx and Engels in their correspondence. The present letter also deals with this below.

Paris, after 18 September 1846

7. they should change the §§ on the sharing of dividends into §§ on the sharing of losses, for, failing all this, they would go bankrupt already as a result of the celebrated principle of bearing the whole loss but sharing the profit. They would therefore have to do twice as much business as any other publisher in order to keep going — but the fact remains that hitherto all publishers dealing exclusively, or merely for preference, in banned works — Fröbel, Wigand, Leske — have, in the long run, been ruined: 1. by confiscation, 2. by being excluded from markets, which — always happens, 3. by sharp practice on the part of commission agents and retail dealers, 4. by police threats, prosecution, etc., 5. by competition from publishers who only occasionally print something objectionable, who are therefore less subject to police interference and who, moreover, also have a better chance of obtaining manuscripts that will appeal, whereas the abovementioned stereotypes are left holding the rubbish and books that do not appeal. The book trade’s struggle with the police can be waged with profit only if large numbers of publishers take part in it; it is essentiellement guerrilla warfare, and one can only make money if one seldom takes such a risk. The market is not large enough to make a spécialité of the article.

For the rest it makes no difference whether the company is ruined, for ruined it will be no matter what kind of start it makes; but where there’s a guarantee, it will be ruined too quickly, a high fever being induced with three crises, of which the third is certainly fatal. In view of the not over-copious supply of manuscripts to be expected, a mild consumption would be more appropriate. It’s only regrettable that too big a hole is made in its capital if it does its own printing. It ought to have sufficient to enable it to print for about 1 1/2 years; for supposing a capital of 3,000 talers expended in the first year, the Eastertide settlement would, given profitable trading, produce approx. 1/3, or a minimum of 2,000 talers. Hence for the second year it ought to have at least 1,000 talers over and above those 3,000 talers. Thus 1/3-1/4 of the capital is permanently tied up in remainders, bad payers, etc. It might be possible to raise this amount by inducing the shareholders to subscribe an additional loan repayable over a period. It is essential, by the way, to consult a publisher first, in order to find out exactly how much of the capital employed remains tied up at the end of the first year, or how much time it takes to turn the total capital over once. I am not sure about it myself, but I have reason to believe that in the above calculations I have underestimated rather than overestimated the capital permanently tied up.

With his 20 per cent of the profits the manager will grow rich. Even if 10 per cent of any losses are passed to the reserve fund, there will be a handsome deficit.

As for the consequences the guarantee would entail for the authors, the less said the better. In my opinion it should be refused if it is tendered in respect of longer works. Once the company has established itself on that basis, we could no longer offer other publishers anything without their believing that the company had turned it down. Quite apart from the fact that the same reasons for which we refused it to the Westphalians obtain here as well. Neither our honour nor our interest would incline us to accept.

To particularise: 7 in the general purposes committee [Tendenzkomitee] is excessive, three, at most 5, is enough Otherwise we shall get jackasses on it, if not intriguers. The general purposes committee must after all be +- resident in Brussels. In which case, with 7 members, how can there be any choice? No reason at all to have so many. In any case it’s we who will have to do the work, and I am ready to take on my share, so what do we want with all those members? Besides, if it is the same with the opinions of the general purposes committee as with those of the Provincial Diets, what then? All those written opinions will make a devil of a lot of work, but there could be no question of our getting out of it. As I said, I am ready to take on my share.

QUERY: If the bourgeoisie nominates a truly socialist supervisory council, which passes outre [overrides] our opinions, what then?