An invaluable look at the relationship had and articles written for ‘The Vienna Presse’ written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. After Marx broke with the New York Tribune over their softening of stance towards and abolition war in the United States, the ‘Presse’ became the main vehicle for Marx’s journalistic articles in the early 1860s and includes much of his most important analysis on the U.S. Civil War, making it an essential resource for U.S. Marxists and students of that profound Revolution. The PDF of the original linked below contains the numerous footnotes to the article. The treasures of Marx and Engels ‘Die Presse’ articles exist in an online archive at the MIA, though only partially transcribed.

‘Marx and the Vienna “Presse” by Avrom Landy (?) from The Communist. Vol. 6 No. 3. May, 1927.

AMERICAN Marxists have much for which to be grateful to Dr. Max Friedlaender and the Vienna “Presse”. Had Friedlaender not requested Marx to write on the civil war in America, the articles would probably never have been written, and we would have had to content ourselves with the unorganized, but more or less extensive, fragments contained in the Marx-Engels correspondence. Fortunately, however, Marx was invited to send his contributions; and now we shall also be able to read a few of them in English translation.

Six years before his agreement to write the articles on the American Civil War for the Vienna “Presse”, Marx had had occasion to write for Friedlaender in another connection. In 1855 Friedlaender co-operated with Moritz Elsner and Dr. Julius Stein, leaders of the old Silesian democracy, in editing the “Neue Oderzeitung”, the last democratic organ in Breslau, which they took over at that time. The newspaper, which was rapidly losing its readers and dying for lack of subscribers, tried, among other things, to hold on to them by means of original contributions from foreign correspondents.*1 Marx became its London correspondent, undoubtedly via Lassalle who must have drawn the attention of his uncle, Friedlaender, to him. He received thirty German dollars (Thaler) a month for his activity which did not last very long. On October, 1855, Elsner wrote him, stating that he could stop sending his letters since every source of help was now closed to the paper and the “Neue Oderzeitung” would have to cease publication by the end of the year, as it actually did.*2

Two years later, December 17, 1857, Lassalle, who had written three letters to Marx without receiving any reply, wrote once more, stating: “…At the beginning of this month, I received the enclosed note from my uncle, Dr. M. Friedlaender, the same who was formerly editor of the “Neue Oderzeitung”, and has now become the second editor of the ‘Presse’ in Vienna. Then it occurred to me to get your address through my local publishing concern, and behold, I succeeded! Let us hope it is right! So I am sending you Max’s note. I do not know the present attitude of the ‘Presse’ at all, and hence am unable to judge in any way whether you will be able to enter into my uncle’s plan.*3 If, however, this seems possible to you, I would advise you under all circumstances to demand an extremely high fee. For the ‘Presse’ doubtless has very large means at its disposal and—for that reason I am including Max’s letter— the matter of price does not seem to stand in his way.”’*4

Marx replied in less than a week in a letter dated December 21, 1857; but because of the gaps in the original which is reprinted in the Marx-Lassalle correspondence published by Mayer, it is difficult to make out his answer. The following sentences, however, undoubtedly refer to the Vienna “Presse”. “Besides,” he writes, “I do not know the paper at all, since there is not an Austrian journal to be had anywhere here, hence know nothing of its general tendency. In any case, I would be interested to see a few numbers of it.”*5 Less than two months later, on February 10, 1858, Lassalle writes back and from his reply it becomes clear that Marx did not accept the offer. “I had really thought of your reply to my uncle’s request beforehand,” he says, “and communicated it to him beforehand almost verbatim as your probable statement. Nevertheless, I did not consider it absolutely impossible that you might accede to the request of the ‘Presse’. For even if the ‘Presse’ understands its ‘anti- French’ (attitude) in such a way that it is identical with ‘pro-England’, that would still not have to be determinated for you. It would perhaps be sufficient if you wrote ‘anti-French’ (i.e., anti- ‘Napoleonic’) articles, which you could do perfectly well without letting yourself out in explicit words on the pro-or anti-English, only indicating your intention here. Negatively agreed with you, and in order to have you at all, upon which it seemed to lay great value, the ‘Presse’ would perhaps have satisfied itself with this and agreed to it. To be sure, matters would surely have bobbed up soon enough which would have led to conflicts. In consequence of your refusal, then, and my sickness, I did not write further to my uncle at all, because the matter is dissolved of its own accord. Nevertheless, if you still want me to write him anything else, let me know.”*6

On February 22, 1858, Marx replied to Lassalle’s letter, saying: “As for your uncle, I would be ready for one thing, but for which I assume again that the ‘Presse’ is not ready. To wit: all that I could engage to do would be a weekly article on commerce, finance, etc., on the three countries, England, France, and the United States of America, according to whether it is interesting. This is also the best possible form of attacking Bonaparte. Further, it is the form in which I would have absolutely nothing to do politically with the ‘Presse’. At this moment great ignorance especially concerning French financial conditions and the French economic situation in general seems to me to predominate. The question is whether the ‘Presse’ or rather its readers are sufficiently interested in the matter. For such an article weekly, I would demand 1 pound sterling. Besides, several numbers of the ‘Presse’ would have to be sent me beforehand so that I could see whether my principles would at all permit me to work on the paper. However, that may be, thank your uncle in my name for being so friendly as to remember me on the occasion.”*7 In less than two weeks, on March 3, 1858, Lassalle informs Marx of his intention to transmit the latter’s proposal to his uncle. “I shall write my uncle your proposition these days,” he says.*8

But nothing came of the entire matter. And we do not hear of it again until a year later when Lassalle writes to Marx at the end of March, 1859, saying: “My uncle, Dr. Max Friedlaender, now editor of the ‘Presse’ in Vienna, has been here these days and still is. He makes the following proposition to you. Hitherto he has been receiving the telegraphic dispatches coming from London through Paris. He asks whether you can telegraph them to him directly from London. Your fee for each dispatch would be 15 francs; he would of course, provide you with the necessary means in some way for paying the telegraphic costs. The entire task that is incumbent upon you is only this: to procure the telegraphic dispatches, which is your affair, but which you ought to be able to do very easily if you are acquainted with the Times or with other large sheets.

“My uncle further comes back to his proposition that you should write letters for the ‘Presse’. The ‘Presse’ now has 24,000 subscribers and his, as he says, the most democratic journal in Austria, stubbornly hostile in its opposition to the government and owing its great bloom to this very fact. In material respect, it is not hindered by considerations of expense and would therefore also like to utilize the most distinguished intellectual forces for itself.

“The content of your letters would be: God and the world, that is, anything you like. This today, that tomorrow. Everything that seems interesting to you. The fee per letter always 24 francs, immaterial how long or short it be. (If you want a larger fee just write me. I believe that under no circumstances would he let the matter go because of that.) As for the number of letters, you can, if you wish, write one each day and again nothing for four weeks.”*9

Lassalle himself had been made a similar glowing offer. But in view of the former attitude of the paper, he was in doubt whether to accept. “The worst of the matter,” he wrote, “is that a judgement in concrete on this depends mainly upon the attitude the Presse has maintained hitherto and I have never even seen a single number of it. You, to be sure, have, nisi fallor, been receiving copies for a time which Max sent to London, and have, therefore, even if for a short time, followed it, are therefore competent to form a judgment.”*10

The prospect of a new source of income was alluring in view of the great distress in which Marx and his family found themselves. Upon Lassalle’s request for an answer within eight days, Marx replied at once, writing on March 28, 1859. “Ad vocem Telegraph,” he writes, “I accept the offer.” Here was a possibility which he could not ignore; and the detail of his reply indicates how much Marx hoped from this new engagement. “Ad vocem ‘Presse’,” he writes further, “I accept this offer likewise: First, because, unlike the time before, no conditions are made in reference to the treatment of particular political characters. It is an absolute principle with me never to have anything to do with a condition. On the other hand, every newspaper may lay claim to the tact of its correspondent. Secondly, because times have changed and I consider it essential that our Party take position wherever it can, were it only temporarily, in order that others might not take possession of the terrain. In the meanwhile, it of course can only be made use of with care, but the important thing is to secure influence at diverse points for more decisive periods of time. The ‘Presse’ which you say Friedlaender sent me, I never received, probably on account of false ad- dress. Moreover, several numbers would have to be sent me at once; one must see from the paper itself how one is to write for the Vienese public, not what.” *11

On April 8, 1859, Lassalle informs Marx that he will receive a reply directly from his uncle. “In accord with your recent letter in reference to the ‘Presse’,” he says, “I was able to write to my uncle only the day before yesterday…You will get an answer directly from him.”*12 But the reply that Marx received was quite disappointing. In a letter written to Marx on April 12, 1859, a summary of which is given by Mehring who had the letter in his hands, Friedlaender denies all the conditions agreed upon with Lassalle, greatly lowers the fee for correspondence and telegrams, wants only one letter a week and reminds Marx that the “Presse” is indeed a liberal paper, but “only insofar as this is allowed in Austria.”*13

Nevertheless, Marx was ready to accept the offer just the same. But as his letter to Lassalle three weeks after the receipt of Friedlaender’s note indicates, Marx once more failed to find employment with the “Presse”. “From the enclosed letter of April 12, which I beg you to return to me,” he writes, “you will see that there is a very essential difference between the conditions your uncle Friedlaender offered me and the conditions which you originally communicated to me. Nevertheless, I accepted by return mail. I merely remarked: 1. that I could not make the outlay for the telegrams; a thing which, moreover, was self-understood and was anticipated in your letter. 2. That it would be desirable (I did not, however, make a conditio sine qua out of this), if we came to an agreement that, as is the case with the Tribune, I be able to draw upon a local banker for the articles, etc., sent off.

“Since then I have received no answer, which surprises me. In case the editors have somebody else in mind, decency would demand that they inform me of it. You know that I in no way ran after the thing. But once I took it over, I took a few preparatory steps with English newspapers, etc., and I do not exactly wish to compromise myself with these people and other acquaintances to whom I communicated the matter from considerations of business. That I, on my side, have not yet sent an article is natural, since no definite engagement has yet taken place.’’*14

Lassalle himself suffered the same fate at the hands of his uncle. Not only did Friedlaender fail to reply to his letters, but after sending him the “Presse” for a few days, even stopped sending this. Friedlaender’s breach of faith embittered Lassalle against him, and in the middle of May, 1859, he writes Marx, saying: “What you write me about my uncle has vexed me very much. He has thereby very much misused my kindness and I shall not forget it. Moreover, his conduct towards you is only an analogy to his behavior towards me and just because of that I can really do nothing at all in the matter.”*15

Two years later, on the occasion of the civil war in America, and at a time when Marx’s financial distress made any income welcome, Friedlaender approached him again with a request for articles on the developments in America. Both Marx and Engels had been exchanging opinions on the American situation in the course of their correspondence; and since Marx was really very much interested in it; he welcomed the opportunity which the “Presse” now held out to him. In a letter of June 10, 1861, Marx tells Engels of Friedlaender’s new proposition. “Today,” he writes, “I received a letter from Vienna: Friedlaender wants two articles from me, one on the situation in America (where I am briefly to summarize, politically and militarily, the entire dirt for one or two leaders) and one on the situation in England. Later he will then (id est, after the receipt of these articles) make more detailed proposals and indeed, I am to get 1 pound sterling for every article, 10 shillings for mere correspondence. According to German standards, this is well paid, and I must agree to do it, for one must live. Since I would like to send the two sample articles off this very week, you must prepare the military part on America for me. I shall then work it up together with the political.”*16

But though Engels responded at once, it does not seem as if Marx wrote the requested articles at that time, the transaction materializing only five months later. He had first to assure himself that the political character of the paper allowed him to cooperate with it. And while the attitude of the “Presse” kept him from cooperating with it in June, a change of position opened the path for such cooperation in October. On the twenty-eighth of September, 1861, Marx writes to Engels, stating: “The Vienna “Presse,” as I see from the Times correspondence of the day before yesterday, has finally executed a turn against Schmerling and perhaps it will now become possible to connect up with the paper.”*17 And on October 30, 1861, after telling Engels about the renewal of his Tribune contributions, Marx states: “Secondly, I had already written to the Vienna “presse” for ‘information’ from Manchester. About three weeks ago I received an answer which, politically, was quite sufficient for me. (The paper has modified its Schmerling- attitude in the meantime). At the same time, Friedlaender, (on account of the pressure of his proprietor), requested two sample articles. These I have already sent and received a reply yesterday morning, 1, that the articles appeared with appropriate advertising at the head of the paper; 2, that I am regularly engaged from November on, 1 pound sterling per article, 10 shillings per correspondence.”*18 And by November 18, 1861, Marx is able to report to Engels: “To the ‘Presse’ I write almost daily.”*19

The articles which Marx thus wrote for the “Presse” are conveniently listed in Ernst Drahn’s “Marx-Bibliographie” which, by the way, is extremely useful for rapid orientation. Without mentioning all of them, the chief ones are as follows: “Der nordameri- kanische Buergerkrieg (October 25, 1861); “Der Buergerkrieg in den Vereinigten Staaten (November 7, 1861); “Amerikanische Angele- genheiten (March 3, 1862); “Der amerikanische Buergerkrieg (March 26, 1862); Zur Kritik der Dinge in Amerika” (August 9, 1862); “Zur Lage in Nordamerika” (November 10, 1862). All of the articles, it will be noticed, fall in the first part of the war. Nevertheless, they represent the attitude which Marx maintained throughout.

It is to be regretted that these articles have not been published in English before and that it is not yet possible to publish them in the form of a separate English edition. We look forward to such an edition, which would do well to contain everything that Marx and Engels have written on the American Civil War, in the near future.*20

There were a number of journals with this name in the history of the movement. This ‘The Communist’ was the main theoretical journal of the Communist Party from 1927 until 1944. Its origins lie with the folding of The Liberator, Soviet Russia Pictorial, and Labor Herald together into Workers Monthly as the new unified Communist Party’s official cultural and discussion magazine in November, 1924. Workers Monthly became The Communist in March ,1927 and was also published monthly. The Communist contains the most thorough archive of the Communist Party’s positions and thinking during its run. The New Masses became the main cultural vehicle for the CP and the Communist, though it began with with more vibrancy and discussion, became increasingly an organ of Comintern and CP program. Over its run the tagline went from “A Theoretical Magazine for the Discussion of Revolutionary Problems” to “A Magazine of the Theory and Practice of Marxism-Leninism” to “A Marxist Magazine Devoted to Advancement of Democratic Thought and Action.” The aesthetic of the journal also changed dramatically over its years. Editors included Earl Browder, Alex Bittelman, Max Bedacht, and Bertram D. Wolfe.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/communist/v06n03-may-1927-communist.pdf