H.M. Hyndman, Justice, September 29, 1894
Source: Justice, September 29 1894, p.3;
Note: This letter is a reply to Edward Bernstein's criticism of Hyndman's review of
Socialism in Danger, by F. Domela Nieuwenhuis.
Transcription and HTML: Graham Seaman
Last updated: February 2026
COMRADE,
—I much regret that some incidental little remarks of mine in reviewing Domela Nieuwenhuis' pamphlet should have led to the infliction upon the readers of JUSTICE of one of Bernstein's elephantine epistles. Surely be has taken up space enough of late in the Vorwarts with his misrepresentations and clumsy invective against the S.D.F. without tumbling this ponderous screed of his into our small sheet. The worst of it is I am obliged to say a few words in reply. But they will be only a few words, and I shall not write again.
Concerning the German International Congress in the Rue Rochechouart, in Paris. in the year 1889. This Congress was organised by the Germans in conjunction with the Guesdist faction in France, and its inception was accompanied by a breach of faith on the part of Bernstein and Bebel towards the S.D.F. At that time our organisation was doing its best to avoid the scandal of two Socialist Congresses, and tried hard to persuade the Germans that the main Socialist organisations of Paris were worthy of some consideration on such a memorable occasion. All in vain. De Paepe, who was very angry with us at the time for not throwing in our lot with the Germans, told me in Brussels, when I called on him with Verrycken a few months before his lamented death, that he regretted his part in that discreditable business; Domela Nieuwenhuis evidently regrets his; and I have little doubt that many more, if they were to speak what is in their minds, would express themselves in the same sense. Imagine a German International Congress in Paris to celebrate the centenary of the Fall of the Bastille, sermonised in German by Bebel for three solid hours by the clock, and universally regarded as a German function! The thing had its ludicrous side, I admit, mischievous as was its effect. But our worthy Bernstein's sense of humour is as defective as his memory is short.
As to Engels and the clique which surrounds him. I say that in 1884, the date of the regrettable "split," in 1887 and 1888 when Engels boasted of his intrigue with Tom Mann at Bolton, in 1889, during the period when Champion, Tom Mann, Keir Hardie, Maltman Barry, John Burns and Co., were running the Labour Elector against us, and since then to this day, the official German set, as represented in London, has done its utmost to traduce and injure the only real Socialist organisation in Great Britain. And this without any reasonable ground whatsoever; for, beyond all question, we have done more, far more, than anybody else to give Marx, Engels himself, and the whole German Social-Democratic party full credit for the admirable work they have done alike in the domain of theory and in that of practice. But we have refused to prostrate ourselves before any human being, German or other. Hence this persistent campaign against us, carried on after a very mean fashion.
Precisely similar tactics have been pursued in other countries, and, for my part, I think it is bigh time that they should be exposed and put an end to. Only the other day I learnt on good authority that an able German correspondent of the Vorwarts in Paris, himself a member of the German Social-Democratic party was, at Friedrich Engels' direct instigation, shut out from sending any further letters to that journal. The reason? Because he was so rash as to tell the truth about the standing of the Guesdists in the French metropolis, and to give a full account of the doings of the Blanquists, the Possibilists, the Allemanists, &c., as well! It was the correspondent's duty, it seems, to speak of the Guesdists alone. All, in short, who don't happen to belong to the family "ring" are to be boycotted. The effect of this sort of thing we partly see in Holland.
I observe that Bernstein, with his usual perversion of facts, writes as if I were in agreement with Domela Nieuwenhuis. I pointed out as clearly and vigorously as I could in my review that I differed from him in his whole policy. But I did this, I hope and believe, in such a manner as to give our Dutch comrade no offence. I am, indeed, anxious to to do nothing and say nothing which might at any future time hinder so honourable, capable and self-sacrificing a man from coming back to our camp, as others of equally high character with himself have come back before him. Let all readers of JUSTICE thoroughly understand that neither I nor, so far as I know, any other member of the S.D.F. has any quarrel with the German Social-Democratic party on general principles, nor even on general tactics. Neither have we the slightest objection to fair criticism; while we have shown time after time, and lately in the most formal manner, by a special delegation to Berlin, that we are most anxious to come to a close agreement with our German brethren, letting bygones be bygones on both sides. But when criticism never takes any shape but that of misrepresentation and calumny ; when our advances are treated with studied discourtesy, and the old miserable system is persistently pursued here and elsewhere—then we are forced, much against our will, to recognise that any alliance with such "leaders" is at present impossible, and that English Social Democrats must leave the Germans severely alone. Nevertheless, I still hope against hope that this state of things, which has lasted for so many years, may ere long come to a close, and that the good sense of the mass of the German party will at length make itself felt.
Yours fraternally,
H. M. HYNDMAN. London, Sept. 22, 1894