Materials for the II Congress of the "League of Russian Revolutionary Social-Democracy Abroad"

1. Outline of a Report on the II Congress of the RSDLP at the League Congress {147}

1. Subject of the report:

α) presentation of facts β) evaluation of results.

2. Preparation of the Iskra Congress (work of the Iskra members of the Organizing Committee. Struggle within the Organizing Committee with the Bund and with "Yuzhny Rabochy"). Influence of the Organizing Committee on the committees, proposal of candidates, sending of delegates in advance.

3. Abolition of imperative mandates. Minority and majority in the editorial board: statement on freedom of action not regarding the troika. Election of the 7th (Ignat).

Program of the congress and the troika (idea of ​​renewal for everyone and its unequal understanding) {148}.

4. *Vorversammlungen* [187] of a private nature. Subjects: Bund, popular newspaper, 2 centers, party charter (only mine).

Confusers *à la* Levitsky: defense of the PPS; (political significance of the popular newspaper and 1 center).

5. Opening of the congress. My mandate.

Election of the bureau. Martov's erroneous plan.

Rules of procedure of the congress (very detailed).

Bundists in the credentials commission.

6. Incident with the Organizing Committee (beginning) – (3rd session of the congress)

α) sudden statement by the Organizing Committee. Meeting by the window β) invitation of Ryazanov. Significance of this step.

*Quasi*-Iskrists Natalia (Ivanovna)

(triumph of the Bundists)

γ) Ignat speaks out with an exposé δ) Martov joins us.

ε) Resolution against the Organizing Committee. No one personally spoke in favor of Ryazanov.

Conclusion: *quasi*-Iskrists.

6. bis. Explanation with Yuriev and Martynov.

Natalia Ivanovna's exit from the *Iskra* organization.

* Agenda. Ed.

** Confuser. Ed.

*** – That's right! Ed.

154 In his speech at the 16th session of the II Party Congress, G. V. Plekhanov stated that if the success of the revolution required the temporary restriction of the action of one or another democratic principle, it would be criminal to stop before such a restriction. He noted that a case was possible when the Social Democrats would speak out against universal suffrage in order to limit the political rights of the exploiting classes.

9. Incident with the equality of languages. (16th session of the congress!)

For us: Iskrists of a consistent line (24 – 6 =) 18

155 The question mark here indicates that at the time of writing this outline V. I. Lenin apparently did not have accurate information about how V. E. Mandelberg (Byulov, according to the congress minutes – Posadovsky) voted, since the minutes of the II Congress of the RSDLP had not yet been published by this time. In reality, in the roll-call vote that is meant here, Mandelberg voted against Lenin's proposal. In total, 25 votes were cast for Lenin's proposal, and 26 against. In the book "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back", written after the publication of the minutes of the II Party Congress, Lenin, considering this roll-call vote, indicates that Posadovsky voted with the anti-Iskrists (see this volume, p. 216).

Significance of the incident: to undermine *Iskra*.

The swamp is entirely against *Iskra*.

10. General characteristics of the swamp: Jesus Sweetest and the *bor'bist* as typical representatives

for *Yuzhny Rabochy* war against Plekhanov (universal suffrage).

See special leaflet {149}.

11. Paragraph 3 of the Tagesordnung.

12. Paragraph 4 of the Tagesordnung. Reports.

13. Paragraph 5 of the Tagesordnung.

14. § 1 of the Charter (at the congress, sessions 22 and 23).

Jaurèsism

1) expansion of the party

2) confusion (non-party organizations from party members)

3) everyone referred to Lenin

4) "party of the masses outside the masses."

157 These are the words of L. Martov. See this volume, p. 49, for more details.

* See this volume, p. 272. Ed.

** Sum. Ed.

*** Against. Ed.

18. Elections. Postponement of the question of 3 and 6 to the congress.

Defeat of the Martovites even without the editorial board.

19. Martov's speech on the "state of siege in the party", "struggle for influence on the Central Committee"

20. Abstention, refusal to submit notes and protests by the Martovites.

* Very weak. Why. Ed.

Written between September 27 and October 14 (October 10 and 27), 1903

First published in 1928 in Lenin Collection VII

Printed from the manuscript

2. Notes on the First Session of the League Congress {150}

159 The first vote mentioned by V. I. Lenin refers to V. D. Bonch-Bruevich's proposal to elect a bureau of the congress consisting of three people. Bonch-Bruevich proposed that one person on the bureau be elected by supporters of the majority of the II Congress of the RSDLP, another by supporters of the minority, and the third by the League assembly. The Mensheviks opposed such a procedure for elections; seeking to use their majority at the League Congress and to get Menshevik candidates into the bureau, they proposed to elect three people to the bureau without regard to whether the elected person was a supporter of the majority of the party congress or a supporter of the opposition. This proposal, which Trotsky defended in his speech, was formulated in writing by Martov and put to a vote along with Bonch-Bruevich's proposal.

160 Note: "Vice" in the first case refers to the process of electing vice-chairmen of the congress, in the second case - to the results of these elections. According to the minutes of the League Congress, 13 votes were cast for M. M. Litvinov.

161 This refers to a letter from the representative of the Central Committee of the RSDLP F. V. Lengnik to the Congress of the Foreign League. The letter expressed the hope that the League, guided by the party charter, would develop a new charter for itself, which would be approved by the Central Committee of the RSDLP.

162 This refers to lengthy debates on the question of whether to grant the right to vote at the congress to members of the Foreign League who were in Russia. The Bolsheviks advocated granting them the right to vote, the Mensheviks opposed it. The point was that two members of the Foreign League, who had left for Russia shortly before the congress - possibly M. N. Lehman (Liza) and P. G. Smidovich (Vasily Ivanovich) - had transferred their votes to the Bolshevik N. E. Bauman. The Mensheviks fought against recognizing the powers of members who had left for Russia, fearing that this would increase the votes of supporters of the majority of the II Party Congress.

163 The vote noted here refers to the proposal of M. Korenevsky (Emanuelov) to maintain the right to vote for members of the Foreign League who left for Russia no later than 3 months ago.

From now on, here are the credentials.

1. Administration report.

2. " of the delegate.

3. Charter.

4. Elections {151}.

165 The notes with the headings "Ours" and "Martovites" represent an accounting of the actual balance of power between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at the Foreign League Congress. The 13 Bolsheviks, who are not named here by name, included 12 people who signed the "Open Letter to the Members of the Foreign League of Russian Rev. Social-Democracy" (see Lenin Collection VII, pp. 72-76) and O. A. Pyatnitsky.

The lower right (extreme) column lists the names of those six members of the Foreign League whose position at the first session was not yet sufficiently clear. During the subsequent sessions of the congress, it became clear that four of the named persons showed themselves to be supporters of the Menshevik opposition, and K. M. Takhtarev (Tar), who also had the vote of A. A. Yakubova (Tar), took a neutral position.

First published in 1928 in Lenin Collection VII

Printed from the manuscript

Materials for the article "Populist Bourgeoisie and Confused Populism"

1. Synopsis of L.'s article "On the Agrarian Question" {152}

* In different places. Ed.

ξ. {proletarianization is by no means a "type of development"} δ. There is no "automatic progress" in agriculture, which is possible in industry to a certain extent depending on the objective development of technology (*sic!* [188]).

η. The French peasantry: famines forgotten after the revolution, progress *etc.* (about our agricultural workers *nil* [189]).

Written between October 29 and November 5 (November 11 and 18), 1903

First published in 1928 in Lenin Collection VII

Printed from the manuscript

2. Plans for the article "Populist Bourgeoisie and Confused Populism"

1. A. Liberal Populism and Bernsteinianism. Their merger, wedding, or just an engagement?

What about the Socialist-Revolutionaries??

6. Fog. Are there any remnants of serfdom?? Both yes and no. Is the new order bourgeois?

Yes - no.

Class struggle? Yes - no.

7. Lack of principle:

There are no dogmas.

Cannot vouch for history {153}.

8. Their (Socialist-Revolutionaries') "criticism"{154}:

careful attitude towards bourgeois domination postponement of the social revolution for an even fuller domination of capitalism active assistance to the main enemy of socialism long live personal land ownership are the cut-offs sufficient?

rustics without socialist propaganda encouragement of bourgeois instincts.

9. Socialist-Revolutionaries and Liberal-Populists:

social revolution only a means ("conditional concept")

not critics, not orthodox fathers and sons are not a fundamental opposition{155} political freedom is an independent good transformation of serf dependence into bourgeois dependence = socialism of the "Iskra" the bourgeoisie is not even thinking about political freedom in our country.

* See this volume, pp. 455, 461. Ed.

10. Programme{156}:

1) freedom of movement

4) peasant-democratic agrarian policy

(α) peasant bank (β) state and appanage lands (γ) creation of small labor farms

Written between October 29 and November 5 (November 11 and 18), 1903

First published in 1928. "

Printed from the manuscript in Lenin Miscellany VII

2{157}

A. Liberal Populism and Bernsteinianism αβγδ

B. Their betrothal: separate characteristics of Populism and Bernsteinianism.

C. The Agrarian Programme of "Osvobozhdenie". 10.

D. Its characterization compared with the Social-Democratic one. 2 agrarian programmes (3). 5β : + ε + ζ + η + ι

Growth{158}.

E. The Socialist-Revolutionaries? Manilovism. Novobrantsev and his Populist slogans.

F. The attitude of the Socialist-Revolutionaries towards the 3 points of the programme. 6.

G. Their lack of a programme. Lack of principle. 7.

H. Their criticism. 8.

I. Fathers and sons. 9.

Written between October 29 and November 5 (November 11 and 18), 1903

First published in 1928 in Lenin Miscellany VII

Printed from the manuscript

3. Populist-minded bourgeoisie and disoriented Populism{159}

1. The liberal-Populist trend in Russia.

Its origin from classical, revolutionary Populism.

Its characteristic features.

Its decline.

2. Bernsteinianism = a new phase of Western European liberalism *up to the date*[190]. ("*Несть пророк в отечестве своем*.")

3. Rapprochement of liberal-Populism and Bernsteinianism. L. in No. 9 (33) of "Osvobozhdenie" = the formalization and strengthening of liberalism in Russia (idealism, economic reformism, political liberalism).

174 Refers to Bernsteinian literature, which the author of the article "On the Agrarian Question" cited to support his revisionist statements about the "unscientific nature of Marxism."

4. The agrarian programme of "Osvobozhdenie". The solidarity of the editorial board with L. – Completeness of the programme. – Its features (commune: rejection of illusions; land question – creation of small farms. (Cf. David.)

5. Comparison of the Social-Democratic and liberal agrarian programmes

* To stir up, to fan the flames. Ed.

6. Disoriented Populism.

I. Novobrantsev is not one of the nimble equilibrists. Populist slogans with him

What are these slogans for?

II. And the Socialist-Revolutionaries? In-between (cf. 5. α β, γ): yes – no, but the essence is the same as that of the liberals (cooperation + socialization).

7. The Socialist-Revolutionaries lack a programme. Lack of principle.

8. Criticism of our programme by the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

Azov does not understand.

(β) are the cut-offs sufficient?

(γ) postponement of the social revolution (δ) rustics without socialist propaganda.

9. Fathers and sons. There is no fundamental opposition between fathers and sons - the only time they told the truth!

α. social revolution is only a means, a "conditional concept" β. not critics and not orthodox γ. political freedom = an independent good δ. the bourgeoisie is not even thinking about political freedom in our country ε. transformation of serf dependence into bourgeois dependence = socialism of the "Iskra" ζ. social-economic democratism ("Osvobozhdenie") and parallels with the Socialist-Revolutionaries.

Two factions of bourgeois democracy.

Written between October 29 and November 6 (November 11 and 18), 1903

First published in 1930 in Lenin Miscellany XV

Printed from the manuscript

Draft of the content of a letter to the editorial board of "Iskra"[191] regarding G. V. Plekhanov's article "What Not to Do" In No. 52 of "Iskra"

Written between November 7 and 19 (November 20 and December 2), 1903

First published in 1930 in Lenin Miscellany XV

Printed from the manuscript

Materials for the book "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back"

1. Draft of a synopsis of the protocols of the Second Congress of the RSDLP{160}

p. 32. Makhov for the Bund (in 1st place or not?){161} p. 46: for the OC (incident with the OC)

p. 33. Makhov: Perhaps a sore question about centralism (NB).

Incident with the OC (pp. 40–47)

177 This column of numbers shows the approximate ratio of votes during the vote on B. A. Ginzburg (Koltsov)'s resolution to abolish the OC's right to influence the composition of the congress as a collegium after the election of the credentials committee. All *Iskra* supporters voted for this resolution. Out of the total number of votes at the congress, equal to 51, 32 votes were cast for Ginzburg's resolution.

"sad incident" (p. 45: Plekhanov){162} "serious accusation" (p. 45. Martynov)

pp. 73–74. Bruker on the "democratic organization" of the Bund{163}.

p. 87: Hofman: "compact majority" of the congress{164}.

p. 91: I am against "petty interference"[192].

p. 153: Popov was for 1 center{165}.

Akimov for weakening the influence of the CC.

p. 155. Popov: 3 and 2 in the Soviet{166} is a secondary issue.

p. 156. Lieber: you are reducing the Central Committee to the role of a clerk! (cf. p. 334 Martov about a "simple appendage.")

p. 157: Martov only disagrees with me on 2 issues: 1) Soviet 2 + 2 + 1; 2) 4/5 or 2/3 co-optation{167}.

p. 157: Akimov sees "prevalence of the CO" in the Soviet.

p. 158. Trotsky: "Our" statute is "organized distrust" of the whole towards the parts.

p. 160. Karsky: If there are 2 + 2 + 1 in the Soviet, then the Central Committee will not be a clerk.

p. 161: Goldblatt: Lenin's statute is monstrous.

An "amorphous mass" (NB) will be in front of the Central Committee{168} (cf. Axelrod in No. 55).

p. 162: Lieber: wouldn't the editorial board of *Iskra* have left the party if the "democratic principle" of organization had been adopted?

p. 169. Egorov against Plekhanov's speech on the non-absolute nature of democratic demands (hisses).

Equality of languages{169}.

172: Martov fights against fetishism.

Three roll-call votes.

p. 181: "to lead" the majority of the congress (Egorov).

182: "such an atmosphere" (Popov).

p. 206. Makhov on the agrarian programme (laughter){170}.

§ 1 (pp. 238–253).

p. 263. Tsarev for 1 center.

278–280. 4 votes (48, 50, 49 and 47 votes)

Martov + Bund{171}.

280: roll-call vote (lost).

283: Akimov: "Martov is showing promise"...{172}

284. Egorov on the "killing" of "Rabocheye Delo".

2. Characterization of delegates according to the protocols{173}

Egorov: I) Incident with the OC 1) asks for a break: 36;

2) asks for a concluding word: 40; 3) accuses Pavlovich 42–43. – II) Speech against the Bund: 93. – III) The significance of recognizing the organ of *Iskra*: 138, 140. – IV) for 1 center, for a popular organ, for defining the limits of the Central Committee's competence: 155. – V) closing the list of speakers is a formal violation: 159 (for the Bund){174}. – VI) hisses at Plekhanov: 169–170. – VII) for equality of languages: 172, 174, 181 ("to lead the congress"){175}. — VIII) The agrarian programme is unclear 192 (theoretically convinced: 197). "Far from the editorial board's enthusiasm for the peasant movement": 205. – IX) Unclear in § 1: 238 (the only speech on § 1). – X) The Party Council is unclear: 267 and 269 (average){176}. – XI) limiting the power of the Central Committee: 272. 273. – XII) "Killing" of "Rabocheye Delo" and leaving the hall{177}, 283–284. — XIII) demand for a vote on "Yuzhny Rabochy" 312, 313, 314 ("lie" that "Yuzhny Rabochy" = "Rabochaya Mysl" cf. 356 (against Bonch). – XIV) principles are lost (around individuals): 337. — XV) support for the opposition. Unclear, 359.{178}

Makhov: I) Against the question of the Bund in 1st place: 32–33 ("sore point": democracy or centralism NB). – II) For the OK in the incident: 46. – III) For equality of languages ter: 172–173. – IV) agrarian program "not social-democratic" 201, demagogy, 202; peasantry into classes – 202, id.[194] 216. Against the entire agrarian program: 211. + Lieber. 212 (NB 211 and others: great muddler{182}). – V) revolution like a riot, 206 (laughter). – VI) against supporting the revolutionary movement (laughter) – 226. Contra[195]: 229 (and the bourgeoisie is revolutionary)!! – VII) § 1 bis[196] with Martov. – VIII) Abstains from voting on the Bund. Would vote for § 2: pp. 289–290 (Muddler!!){183}. – IX) for "Freedom"{184}: 307. – X) "indecent" – for the edition 323, id. 328,{185}

Lvov: I) Against the Bund: 33, 78 and 89 (good speeches). – II) For equality of languages ter. 172. – III) on § 1 bis for Martov – 254. – IV) for "Freedom" – 307 and 319.

Tsarev: I) for 1 center: 263. – II) for equality of languages (2 abstained and 1 time for Martynov) – 172. – III) on § 1 bis for me. – IV) for the edition 324 (vulgarity NB). – V) elections of 1 editor: 335.{186}

Belov: I) equality of languages (1 time for and 2 against us). – II) § 1 bis for Martov. – III) for "Yuzhny Rabochy" 308. – IV) for the six: 335.

Pavlovich:

1) Against "Borba". 39

2) incident with the OK. 41. 43. 45

3) equality of languages – for us

4) § 1 – 247 – for me (good speech 247)

cf. 255 – irony

5) for the predominance of the Central Organ over the Central Committee – 264

6) for the trio – 328.

Sorokin:

1) Against "Borba" – 39

2) equality of languages for us (ter)

3) § 1 for me (bis)

4) against the six – NB – 328

5) idem "about Lenin's malicious intent"{187} – 339

C) – about Deutsch's words p. 351.

Lyadov:

1) Against the Bund (briefly) – 70, 120

2) for "Iskra" – 140

3) equality of languages + + +

4) throw out "poor children"{188} – 180

5) business amendments to the agrarian program – 188

(a passim[197])

6) § 1+ +

7) against "Yuzhny Rabochy" (good) – 316

8) » » 6 – 326.

Gorin:

1) Reply to Martynov – 119 (cf. 121 and 166){189}

2) for "Iskra" – 137 and 141

3) agrarian program, amendments – 191, 196, 212

4) equality of languages + + +

5) § 1 + +

6) against "Yuzhny Rabochy" – 317

7) » » 6 – 325.

Glebov:

1) influence of the Central Committee from activity…{190} 158

2) for dissolving "Yuzhny Rabochy" – 316

3) against the six – 328.

Lensky:

1) Against the Voronezh Committee 50

2) equality of languages against us 172, 173

(2 out of 3)

3) § 1 – against me bis.

Stepanov:

1) 77 – against the Bund – 77

2) equality of languages: abstained + bis for us

3) § 1 – for me bis.

Gorsky:

1) equality of languages – , 0, + (+ for us)

2) § 1 + and + bis (for me).

Karsky:

1) remark (minor) against the OK – 55

2) against the Bund 65, 81, 89

NB

3) reply to Martynov and about the party – 126{191}

4) equality of languages – – –

5) for the agrarian program 207, 213, 222

6) § 1 speech 239 (—). – —

Rusoe:

1) against Bundism 65 and 71, 104

2) equality of languages – – –

3) agrarian program business amendment – 225

4) § 1 – speech 247

5) Soviet. For me – 265

6) about new Bundism 296, 302{192}

7) against "Yuzhny Rabochy" 314

8) against the six 325.

Bekov:

1) against the Bund – 81

2) equality of languages – – –

3) § 1 + +

Lange:

1) against "Borba": 38

2) » » Bund: 69

3) agrarian [program]. Unclear sections. Why not expropriate all the land? || NB

Not charmed by the agrarian program – 205.

Suggests changes in editing: 225

4) equality of languages ter for us

5) § 1 bis for me

6) about the Soviet against me (265) – || NB

7) against "Yuzhny Rabochy" – 315 –

good – NB

8) » » 6 – 327. – NB.

Gusev:

1) equality of languages ter for us

2) speech about the agrarian program very practically – 203

3) § 1 for me

4) cannot protect the Central Committee from the influence of the Central Organ – 265

5) against "Yuzhny Rabochy" – 312 and 314 (NB)

6) speech against the six – 326.

Muravyov:

1) against the Bund – p. 76

2) for "Iskra" – 139 and 141

3) equality of languages – ter for us

4) for the agrarian program (minor details) – 216 and 217

5) for § 1 (248) and bis

6) against "Yuzhny Rabochy" – 313 and 315

7) » » 6 – 321 (meaning: 353 NB).

3. Composition of the "Iskra" organization at the II Congress of the RSDLP{193}

4. Swamp

? (Protasek… Chernysheva.){194}

211 It has not been clarified what specific fact is being discussed.

212 *Borba-ism* is a term derived from the name of the Ryazan group "Borba," which engaged in vulgar criticism of the Social Democratic program. A representative of the "swamp," D. P. Kalafati (Mitzov, according to the congress protocols – Makhov), made a similar criticism of the draft program of the RSDLP at the congress, to whom the term "Borba-ism" is applied in this case.

213 Initially, the note about the speeches of S. Zborovsky (Konstantinov, according to the congress protocols – Kostich) was assigned to the "swamp" group, then V. I. Lenin clarifies Zborovsky's position at the congress and characterizes him as a Martovite. This is evidenced by the later pencil inscription "Martovite" and the separation of this note from the rest of the text.

* Preliminary meeting. Ed.

Groupings and types of voting at the II Congress of the RSDLP{195}

215 Four votes are noted here on the issues of co-option into the centers, when the Bundists participated in the voting, who supported Martov each time. V. I. Lenin analyzes these votes in the book "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" (see the present volume, pp. 287–288).

TYPES OF VOTING

A)

1. Program.

2. Bund's withdrawal.

3. Principled [resolution] on the Bund.

4–6. Recognition of "Iskra".

B)

1. Incident with the OK.

2. Closing "Yuzhny Rabochy".

3. Agrarian program.

4. Agrarian program.

5. Closing the Union.

6. Raising the question of the Bund's place in the 1st place (30 for, 10 against).

((p. 33, i.e., after the adoption of the regulations, p. 28))

C) Equality of languages

3 nominal (16 total).

D) § 1 (2 nominal)

E) Elections

* Sum. Ed.

6. End of the brochure{196}

13. Elections to the centers. End of the congress.

14. General picture of voting at the congress.

15. After the congress. Who is "besieging" whom?

16. League. On the eve of the split.

17. Deal with the opposition.

18. New "Iskra". Organizational disagreements.

19. New "Iskra". Flirting with opportunism.

20. Two coups.

7. Information about a private meeting of delegates of the majority on August 18{197}

The private meeting on August 18, according to my calculation, was on Tuesday evening after the 28th session of the congress.

Written in the second half of January – February 1904

First published in 1931 in Lenin Miscellany XI

Printed from the manuscript

Fragment-variant of the letter "On the Circumstances of Leaving the Editorial Board of Iskra"[198]

Since Comrade Plekhanov has undertaken such an interesting and instructive matter as acquainting the public with his private conversations, then he will continue it, we hope. He will probably tell with all the detail and thoroughness about his two following conversations. The first, when he spoke about grève générale des généraux[199], about жалких людях, when he quoted with effect the phrase: "er ist ein Mann, und sie sind alte Weiber"[200] and assured that he would definitely, well, definitely write a brochure under the title: "Thermidor in a Teacup." The second, when he proved the moral responsibility to the majority of those who are authorized by this majority, and compared people who consider party institutions immutable in composition, with rats that have grown together by their tails. Let us remind Comrade Plekhanov that both conversations took place two days before the ones he cited, and took place in the Landolt restaurant in front of dozens of listeners{198}.

Written in February, no later than 7 (20), 1904

First published in 1929 in Lenin Miscellany X

Printed from the manuscript

Three outlines of a report on the Paris Commune{199}

1. In Memory of the Paris Commune

Honoring the greatest workers' uprising of the 19th century. Historical sketch.

1. France under Napoleon III.

Imperialism. (S. 45)

– payment for VI. 48. Napoleon III.

– Expropriation of France by a gang of bandits.

α. Bonapartism {workers are not yet capable bourgeoisie is already not{200}} β. Rapid industrial development. Orgies of plutocracy. Prosperity of speculation. Corruption.

γ. – Workers' movement –

I. A. A.{201}

– 1862 London Exhibition{202}

– 1864 foundation

2. Dynastic war. Saving a gang of adventurers – chauvinism.

Left Bank of the Rhine. A Berlin[201] (especially after 1866){203}

19. VII. 70 war declared.

German statements (of Wilhelm I): Verteidigungskrieg[202]. (P. 20 in the throne speech: war with Napoleon III, not with the French people; the same on 11. VIII. 70 in the manifesto to the French upon crossing the border).

3. Protests of workers.

4. Outcome of the war.

Sedan 2. IX. 70. Capture of Napoleon III. Débâcle{204}.

5. Councils of the International.

225 This refers to the manifesto of the Central Committee of the Social-Democratic Workers' Party of Germany of September 5 (New Style) 1870 (see K. Marx and F. Engels. Selected Works in Two Volumes, vol. I, 1955, p. 455).

226 See K. Marx and F. Engels. Selected Works in Two Volumes, vol. I, 1955, p. 456.

* Behead and deprive of capital status. Ed.

227 See K. Marx and F. Engels. Selected Works in Two Volumes, vol. I, 1955, p. 459.

228 The commander of the artillery of the Parisian army, Alphonse Simon Guio, wrote to the artillery divisional general Suzanne that he could take his protégé into his staff, where he would be bored from idleness, or send him to Mont Valérien, where they only pretended to fire cannons. This letter, published by the Commune in No. 115 of April 25, 1871, of the newspaper "Journal Officiel de la République Française" ("Official Gazette of the French Republic"), testified that the "government of national defense" only created the appearance of defending Paris. See also K. Marx and F. Engels. Selected Works in Two Volumes, vol. I, 1955, p. 459.

9. Affairs of the Commune.

10. Its advantages:

A) Political reforms

α. separation of church from state (2. IV. 71).

Expropriation of church property. Abolition of all state payments to the church.

Free public education (P. 46)

β. destruction of the standing army (30. III. 71) (P. 46)

229 This refers to Leo Frankel – a worker-jeweler, one of the leaders of the union of German workers in France, a prominent figure in the Hungarian and international labor movement, the founder of the first Hungarian socialist workers' party.

* Capable of managing. Ed.

11. B) Economic reforms.

12. The final struggle.

13. Results and lessons. Revenge of the bourgeoisie. Even the "national war" became political fraud (P. 67).

Betrayed the fatherland (alliance with the Germans: P. 66).

Instability of bourgeois democracy.

Dictatorship of the proletariat.

Bismarck 1871. Confer[203] 1904.

Written in March, earlier than 9 (22), 1904

First published in 1934 in Lenin Miscellany XXVI

Printed from the manuscript

5. Defense of Paris. The comedy of Jules Favre (Trochu).

– his capitulation.

6. Attempt to disarm the proletariat. 18. III. 71. The Commune.

7. The Versailles government. Chamber of Junkers, landlords (Ruraux, Krautjunker).

– the comedy of "peace" with Paris

– haggling with Bismarck

– alliance with the German army against the proletariat.

10. B) Economic reforms

– prohibition of night work for bakers

– prohibition of fines

– postponement of debts

– transfer of empty factories to workers

– obligation (of maintenance etc.) of every

– cohabitation with a woman

– payment (pension?) to every widow.

11. The Final Struggle:

Heroism of the federals.

Week of Blood.

Balance: 35,000.

Terror.

12. Results and lessons:

Revenge of the bourgeoisie.

Challenge to battle.

Bismarck 1871 and 1904.

Written in March, earlier than 9 (22), 1904

First published on March 18, 1926 in the newspaper "Pravda" No. 63

Printed from the manuscript

I.

1. Napoleon III and his gang.

2. Shame of France.

3. Guilt of the bourgeoisie in Napoleon III.

II.

1. Dynastic war with Germany.

2. Protest of French workers (Parisians 12. VII and manifesto of the International 23. VII).

3. Solemn promise of Wilhelm I (11. VIII). Deception by him.

4. Protest of German workers (5/IX. 70) and their arrest.

III.

1. Republic 4. IX. 70. Conquered by Parisian workers.

2. Seizure of power by crooks (Favre, Trochu, Thiers – ticket of leave men{205}).

3. "Government of National Defense" = government of national treason. Struggle against French workers.

IV. Marx's warning (Manifesto of the International 9. IX. 70).

Letters of Dupont{206}.

V.

1. Conspiracy of slave owners and monarchists to disarm Paris.

2. Bordeaux and the transfer of the National Assembly to Versailles.

3. Sending Vinoy, Valentin, and de Paladine to Paris.

4. Monarchical speeches in the assembly of "hicks."

VI. Beginning of the civil war by Thiers: seizure of cannons 18. III. 71 (murder of Lecomte and Clément Thomas).

VII. 18. III. 71. The Commune.

VIII. War with the Commune: begging for soldiers from Bismarck, shameful peace. Bloody Week 21–28. V. 71.

Convicted by courts – 13,450 (including 157 women){207} (! 51/2 years after 18. III trials were still ongoing!).

Written in March, earlier than 9 (22), 1904