WEITLING AND MARX 115hammered out the communist doctrine which became the great
force in world history it is today.
In earlier correspondence Weitling, using the familiar du
form, had expressed his gratitude for Marx's favorable reviews
of his literary output in the Paris Vorwärts, and on one occasion
he wrote from London to offer his friendship and to send greet
ings to Mrs. Marx. Not long thereafter, Weitling apparently was
offended because Marx and Engels failed to help him financially
with a project to publish the treatise on a universal language on
which he had been at work in London. It is probable that the re
fusal was couched in the brusque, sarcastic style of which both
Marx and Engels were masters, and the incident undoubtedly
heightened Weitling's distrust of intellectuals.
Curiously enough, the actual crisis in the relations between
Marx and Weitling came because of the activities of Hermann
Kriege in America. Kriege, a friend of Robert Blum, who fell in
the Revolution of 1848, was an ardent disciple of Ludwig Feuer¬
bach. He had founded a "reading circle" in Berlin to create inter
est in democratic reforms and after trouble with the Prussian
police had gone to the United States. Here he became the leader
of a Young America group, and published a paper in New York,
known as the Volkstribun. This little radical journal, printed in
German, had some circulation in Europe, and its editor corre
sponded regularly with communists on the Continent. As spokes
man for the old League of the Just, Kriege founded a local of the
organization in New York. Never noted for great stability in his
reform activities, he had embraced the program of the Land Re
form Association, which advocated free homesteads and accepted
the support of Tammany Hall. Kriege never hesitated to appeal
for contributions to a rich man such as John Jacob Astor when he
needed money either for his paper or to aid needy immigrants who
had just arrived in the city.
Though the Volkstribun championed the doctrines of the com
munists about labor and money, the editor did not feel bound to
follow any party line. His paper was anticlerical, anticapitalist,