Letter to the Editor of Justice, April 1888

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

This letter, the original of which has recently been discovered by GDR researchers in the archive of the International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam), was written by Engels on the occasion of the expulsion from Switzerland, under pressure of the German authorities, of four leading editors and publishers of Der Sozialdemokrat, newspaper of the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany, which was published in Zurich after the promulgation of the Anti-Socialist Law (see Note 174). The letter was to be sent out to the editorial boards of various newspapers for the purpose of informing English readers about the real causes and circumstances of this action by the Swiss Federal Council. When writing the letter, Engels most probably had the full text of the resolution on the expulsion, which he repeatedly quotes and which did not appear in Der Sozialdemokrat until April 28.

Engels apparently believed that the letter should originate with German Social-Democrats, and so it was despatched bearing Kautsky’s signature. Apart from Justice, on April 28, 1888 The Commonweal, press organ of the Socialist League, featured a note about “an interesting letter from a comrade on this subject” and gave a summary of it. Publications in other English papers have not been found.

Dear Comrade.—The Press has already announced that four German Socialists — Bernstein, Motteler, Schlueter and Tauscher, editors and publishers of the Zurich Sozial Demokrat,—have been expelled from Switzerland by the Federal Council of that country for “having abused the hospitality extended to them.” This severe measure must appear all the more surprising, as the paper in question, during the eight years of its existence, has always carefully refrained from attacks upon Switzerland and Swiss institutions, and as its language generally has never been more moderate than during the last few months.

The official text of the order of expulsion giving the reasons upon which the Federal Council bases it, is now before us, and these reasons are surprising indeed. The Federal Council would make us believe that its attention was first called to the Sozial Demokrat, not by anything published by that paper itself, but by a comic paper, printed in the same office in January, 1887, of which only one number was bought! And yet the Sozial Demokrat from the first day of its publication had been watched with the greatest and most constant attention by the German authorities, and, at their request by the Swiss authorities.

The Federal Council having thus become aware of the necessity of watching the Sozial Demokrat, now found out, as it tells us, that this paper “was written in a generally violent language offensive to the authorities of the German Empire.” That is to say, the paper did not proclaim actual and forcible resistance against the State power in Germany, much less in Switzerland. It merely stigmatised as such and called by their proper names, the infamies committed in Germany by the authors of the Anti-Socialist Law and their executive tools. That, however, is “abuse of hospitality” in a republic, which itself celebrates year by year in hundreds of commemorative festivals the homicidal act of William Tell, and brags of the asylum it offers to refugees of all nations.

In consequence of this violent language, we are further informed, an official warning was administered to the Sozial Demokrat, which, however, had not the desired effect. “Certainly the editors henceforth took care to avoid coarsely offensive expressions.” But they declined “to change anything in the fundamental programme of the paper,” and moreover they “reproduced articles which appeal to force, though accompanied by commentaries intended to make people believe in the moderation of the paper itself.” To prove this latter grave offence, the Federal Council states that on April 7th, 1888, the Sozial Demokrat reprinted certain resolutions passed in 1866—twentytwo years ago!—by 500 Germans in Zurich, resolutions calling upon the German people of that day to rise in arms against their government. In 1866 not one of the 500 Germans present at that meeting in Zurich was molested by the Federal Council on account of these resolutions. But if in 1888 the Sozial Demokrat merely states these facts, that is sufficient to expel from Switzerland four men connected with that paper.

Altogether the reasons given are ridiculous. But the fact is the Federal Council dared not state the real reasons for its actions: that Bismarck and Puttkamer, his home secretary, are furious at the German Social-Democrats in Switzerland having succeeded in unmasking a set of spies and agents provocateurs sent out by the German police in order to manufacture evidence to enable the government to demand the prolongation, and with increased stringency, of this Socialist Coercion Bill. The expulsion is Puttkamer’s revenge for the defeat inflicted upon him by the Socialist members in the Reichstag and by the Sozial Demokrat, and the Federal Council acts as Puttkamer’s humble servant. The expulsion of our comrades means the extension of the German Socialist Coercion Act to Switzerland; it means that the dynamitards of the Russian police will henceforth enjoy in Zurich the same official protection that is extended to them in Berlin.

The only country in Europe where a right of asylum may still be said to exist is England. No doubt Bismarck will try, as he has done before now, to draw England within the nets of his international political police and to place German Socialists, in England too, under his “petty state of siege.” Will there be English statesmen prepared to meet him half way? If so, let us hope that English working men will know how to stop their government from playing the same abject and cowardly part now played by the Swiss Federal Council.

I am, dear comrade, yours fraternally,

Karl Kautsky