FROM PLEKHANOV'S ARTICLE IN NO. 00 TO NOTE 3 4):
[End of April 1905]
1) Misrepresentation that "Vpered accuses Iskra" (column 1) in the sense that this distorts the presentation of the question.
In fact, Martynov even before 9 I began to frighten the Vperedovtsy with the necessity for them to participate in a revolutionary government in the event of a victorious uprising led by the proletariat (Martynov, p. 10 — I). (Martynov and Iskra, NB quote NB from Engels.)
Ergo, it was not Vpered who began to drag out the question of "seizure of power" (this formulation is not ours, but Iskra's. This Formulation is narrow), but Martynov and Iskra, as a deterrent from a successful uprising.
2) Gross misrepresentation, that Vpered called Marx and Engels "virtuosos of Philistinism." Martynov ≠ Marx!
Vpered said that the change autocracy — liberal constitution — democratic republic — socialistic revolutio]n, "Berna in general," but Philistinism is limiting oneself to the first attack by a secondary role[,], is vulgarity. "To present without leaps" is vulgarity. "To present as a slowly and uniformly ascending straight line" is vulgarity. Plekhanov substitutes the question.
3) Presenting the "Address," Plekhanov makes a new distortion on this question, leaving in the shadows that it was written precisely when the complete victory of the people had already failed, when the liberal bourgeoisie had already replaced the autocracy, when, consequently, the revolution had already been curtailed and escamotaged.
After the failure of a popular uprising that did not give a complete victory, Marx and Engels advise the working class to organize and prepare. Is this really the answer to the situation before the first uprising? Is this really the answer to the assumption of a victorious uprising of the proletariat?? (namely, Iskra and Ma]rtynov proceeded from such an assumption).
4) Presenting the "Address," Plekhanov forgets to add the most important indication of Marx, that the petty bourgeois democracy in Germany in 1848 and 49 — organized "more and more organized," "while the working party lost its only firm basis of support" *) (Seite 75 Ansprache]).
Ergo: Marx notes the greater organization of petty bourgeois democracy, notes that the working party was in 1848 at the discretion of the bourgeoisie (Seite 76 Ansprache]). Therefore, Marx pays all attention entirely to the necessity of independent organization of the proletariat, therefore he considers the predominance of the petty bourgeois party unquestionable (Seite 78 Ansprache]), therefore he does not see chances for the predominance of the working party and its participation in the revolutionary government.
5)
Marx is generally silent in the Ansprache "Address" about the participation of the working party (in the temporary) revolutionary government.
Therefore, Plekhanov is completely wrong when he asserts that Marx "did not even allow the thought that the political representatives of the proletariat could work together with representatives of the petty bourgeoisie to create a new social order."
This is incorrect.
Marx does not touch on this thought in a concrete statement of it in relation to the temporary revolutionary government.
Marx does not raise the question about the participation of the social democrats in the temporary revolutionary government, and Plekhanov portrays that Marx resolves this question unconditionally negatively.
Marx says: we, social democrats, were all in the tail. We are organized worse, we need to independently organize, when the petty bourgeois democracy in the event of the success of the revolution will be in power.
Martynov concludes: we, social democrats, who are now much better organized than the revolutionary petty bourgeois democracy in Russia and who constitute an unconditionally independent party, should be afraid that in the event of the success of the uprising we will have to participate in the temporary revolutionary government.
Yes, comrade Plekhanov, Marxism is one thing, Martynovism is another.
*) "Support" is written above "basis." Ed.

3<H
6) Plekhanov says that "the proofs of Vpered are limited to a few incessantly repeated words," and Iskra "does not want to criticize Marx."
Is that so?
Whose proofs are limited to "repeated words"? Didn't Plekhanov make up his entire baggage of "quotes"?? Miserable baggage.
Vpered does not "criticize" Marx. Mach and Avenarius are a cover for the poverty of Plekhanov's argumentation.
Vpered examines the concrete Russian conditions, about which Plekhanov did not say a word: the ratio of the proletariat and the peasantry organization of the one and the other compare the strength of the petty bourgeois democracy and social democracy the moment of the first uprising.
Condition of the entire reasoning: a victorious uprising.
Isn't it the other way around, comrade Plekhanov? Didn't you limit yourself to words and quotes? Didn't Vpered give proofs of the analysis of a concrete — historical question?
7) Plekhanov says that Marx and Engels changed their views only in that the socialistic revolution is not yet near.
"The political tasks of the proletariat would have been determined by them (when correcting this error) already on the assumption that the democratic system will remain dominant for a fairly long period. But precisely because of this they would have condemned even more decisively the participation of socialists in a petty bourgeois government."
Cur? Plekhanov mixes here the democratic and socialistic dictatorship!!
8) Engels to Turati 7).
a) There is no entire letter.
b) Turati = Millerand. Portfolio. Is this the situation?
c) Engels proved to Turati that the revolution will be democratic, not socialistic.
Nihil in essence!