significance as the first independent theoretical
stirring of the German proletariat, I still today subscribe
to Marx’s words in the Paris Vorwarts 118 of 1844: “Where
could the (German) bourgeoisie—including its
philosophers and learned scribes—point to a work
relating to the emancipation of the bourgeoisie—its
political emancipation—comparable to Weitling’s
Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom ? If one
compares the drab mealy-mouthed mediocrity of
German political literature with this immeasurable and
brilliant debut of the German workers, if one compares
these gigantic children’s shoes of the proletariat with
the dwarf proportions of the worn-out political shoes
of the bourgeoisie, one must prophesy an athlete’s
figure for this Cinderella.” This athlete’s figure
confronts us today, although still far from being fully
grown.
Numerous sections existed also in Germany; in
the nature of things they were of a transient character,
but those coming into existence more than made up
for those passing away. Only after seven years, at
the end of 1846, did the police discover traces of the
League in Berlin (Mentel) and Magdebourg (Beck),
without being in a position to follow them further.
In Paris, Weitling, who was still there in 1840,
likewise gathered the scattered elements together
again before he left for Switzerland.
The tailors formed the central force of the League.
German tailors were everywhere: in Switzerland, in
London, in Paris. In the last-named city, German was
so much the prevailing tongue in this trade that I was
acquainted there in 1846 with a Norwegian tailor who
had travelled directly by sea from Trondhjem to France
and in the space of eighteen months had learned
hardly a word of French but had acquired an excellent
knowledge of German. Two of the Paris communities
in 1847 consisted predominantly of tailors, one of
cabinetmakers.
After the centre of gravity had shifted from Paris
to London, a new feature grew conspicuous: from
being German, the League gradually became
international. In the workers’ society there were to be
found, besides Germans and Swiss, also members of
all those nationalities for whom German served as
the chief means of communication with foreigners,
notably, therefore, Scandinavians, Dutch, Hungarians,
Czechs, Sothern Slavs, and also Russians and
Alsatians. In 1847 the regular frequenters included a
British grenadier of the Guards in uniform. The society
soon called itself the Communist Workers’ Educational
Association, and the membership cards bore the
inscription. “All Men Are Brothers,” in at least twenty
languages, even if not without mistakes here and
there. Like the open Association, so also the secret
League soon took on a more international character;
8
at first in a restricted sense, practically through the
varied nationalities of its members, theoretically
through the realisation that any revolution to be
victorious must be a European one. One did not go
any further as yet; but the foundations were there.
Close connections were maintained with the
French revolutionists through the London refugees,
comrades-in-arms of May 12, 1839. Similarly with the
more radical Poles. The official Polish emigres, as also
Mazzini, were, of course, opponents rather than allies.
The English Chartists, on account of the specific
English character of their movement, were
disregarded as not revolutionary. The London leaders
of the League came in touch with them only later,
through me.
In other ways, too, the character of the League
had altered with events. Although Paris was still—and
at that time quite rightly—looked upon as the mother
city of the revolution, one had nevertheless emerged
from the state of dependence on the Paris
conspirators. The spread of the League raised its self-
consciousness. It was felt that roots were being struck
more and more in the German working class and that
these German workers were historically called upon
to be the standard-bearers of the workers of the North
and East of Europe. In Weitling was to be found a
communist theoretician who could be boldly placed
at the side of his contemporary French rivals. Finally,
the experience of May 12 had taught us that for the
time being there was nothing to be gained by attempts
at putsches. And if one still continued to explain every
event as a sign of the approaching storm, if one still
preserved intact the old, semi-conspiratorial rules, that
was mainly the fault of the old revolutionary defiance,
which had already begun to collide with the sounder
views that were gaining headway.
However, the social doctrine of the League,
indefinite as it was, contained a very great defect, but
one that had its roots in the conditions themselves.
The members, in so far as they were workers at all,
were almost exclusively artisans. Even in the big
metropolises, the man who exploited them was usually
only a small master. The exploitation of tailoring on a
large scale, what is now called the manufacture of
ready-made clothes, by the conversion of handicraft
tailoring into a domestic industry working for a big
capitalist, was at that time even in London only just
making its appearance. On the one hand, the exploiter
of these artisans was a small master; on the other
hand, they all hoped ultimately to become small
masters themselves. In addition, a mass of inherited
guild notions still clung to the German artisan at that
time. The greatest honour is due to them, in that they,
who were themselves not yet full proletarians but only
an appendage of the petty bourgeoisie, an
Class Struggle