V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:LS/v5;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

AN UNSUCCESSFUL REFERENCE TO MARX
9) “To participate in a provisional revolutionary government together with the petty-bourgeoisie means betraying the proletariat”...
Indeed? / 1848, 1873 Bakunisten an der Arbeit. } From below?
From above?
10) Iskra No. 95 from below.
Bakunisten.
11) Iskra No. 93—if it falls to us spontaneously, we shall not draw back.

V.
*NOTES FOR THE ARTICLE “ON THE PROVISIONAL REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT”
1. Does it follow from Marx’s “Address” to the Communists in March 1850 that Marx did not admit the idea of Communists participating in a provisional revolutionary government, in the epoch of the democratic revolution, together with the bourgeoisie?
2. Is it true that Marx in the said “Address” did not even raise the question of Social-Democratic participation in a provisional revolutionary government?
3. Is there a difference between: “not admitting the idea of participation” and “not raising the question of participation”?
4. Is it true that in the said “Address” Marx himself noted the strengthening of the petty-bourgeois democratic party and the weakening of the working-class Communist party in the recent period?
5 *).

G.
AN UNSUCCESSFUL REFERENCE TO MARX.
[Martynov, Marx and Plekhanov.]
In the leading article of Iskra No. 96, Plekhanov tries to defend the tactics of Iskra on the question of Social-Democratic participation in a provisional revolutionary government and to show the incorrectness of the tactics which we defended in Vperyod.
Unfortunately, 1) Plekhanov gave no exposition at all of his own views on this deeply interesting and important question; 2) he presented the views of Iskra and Vperyod quite incorrectly and inaccurately; 3) the quotations from Marx, to which Plekhanov’s article essentially reduces itself entirely, are introduced quite inappropriately, since they do not refer to the question at issue between Iskra and Vperyod.
[Let us begin with Plekhanov’s exposition of the essence of the dispute. Plekhanov entitled his article “On the Question of the Seizure of Power”. He criticises “the tactics directed” (evidently, by Vperyod)]*).
*) Stellung der Frage—formulation of the question.
2) Ansprache—Address. See note 7 on page 258.
3) (Works, Vol. VII, p. 322.)
4) Alias—in another place, not now.
5)
Plekhanov’s article “On the Question of the Seizure of Power”. (Iskra No. 96, of April 18 (5), 1905.) See note 26 on page 260.
6) Sig—why.
7) Engels’ letter to Turati, dated January 26, 1894, was published immediately after Engels’ death (1895) under the heading: “La futura rivoluzione italiana il partito socialista” (“The Future Revolution in Italy and the Socialist Party”) in No. 3 of Critica Sociale (Social Criticism), a fortnightly published in Milan under the editorship of F. Turati since 1891. The occasion for Engels’ statement was a discussion in the Italian Socialist Party in connection with the mass peasant disturbances in Sicily (the so-called hunger riots). Engels gave a general characterisation of the internal situation in Italy and expressed his views on the character of the impending revolution and on the tactics which the revolutionary Marxist party should adopt. Plekhanov referred to Engels’ letter to Turati in his polemic with Lenin. (See G. V. Plekhanov, Works, Vol. XIII, pp. 289-290.) Lenin’s reply criticising Plekhanov’s understanding of “Engels’ Letter” is to be found in Works, Vol. VII, pp. 268 and 322.
*) Here the manuscript breaks off. Ed.