[End of April 1905]
1) Exaggeration that "Vpered accuses Iskra" (column 1)
in the sense that this distorts the framing of the question.
In fact, Martynov even before 9 I began to scare the Vperedists
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 cite NB from Engels.)
Ergo, it was not Vpered that began to drag out the question of "seizing power"
(This formulation is not ours, but Iskra's. This formulation is narrow),
but Martynov and Iskra, as a deterrent to a successful uprising.
2) Gross exaggeration that Vpered called Marx and Engels
"virtuosos of philistinism." Martynov is not = Marx!
Vpered said that the change from autocracy — liberal constitution — democratic republic — socialist revolution, "is correct in general," but philistinism is limiting oneself to the first attack by a secondary role, is vulgarity. "To represent without leaps" is vulgarity. "To represent as a slowly and evenly ascending straight line" is vulgarity. Plekhanov substitutes the question.
3) In presenting the "Address," Plekhanov makes a new distortion on this issue, 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 cut short and scammed.
After the failure of the people's uprising, which did not give a complete victory, Marx and Engels advise the working class to organize and prepare. Is this really a response to the situation before
the first uprising? Is this really a response to the assumption of a victorious uprising of the proletariat?? (and it was precisely from such an assumption that Iskra and Martynov proceeded).
4) In presenting the "Address," Plekhanov forgets to add Marx's most important indication that the petty-bourgeois democracy in Germany in 1848 and 49 — org. "became more and more organized," "while the working party lost its only firm basis of support" *) (Seite 75 Ansprache]).
Ergo: Marx states the greater organization of the petty-bourgeois democracy, states that the working party was in 1848 in the liberation of the bourgeoisie (Seite 76 Ansprache]). Therefore, Marx pays all attention entirely to the need for independent organization of the proletariat, therefore he considers the predominance of the petty-bourgeois party undoubted (Seite 78 Ansprache]), therefore he sees no chances for the predominance of the working party and its participation in the revolutionary government.
5) Marx is completely silent about the participation of the working party in the (temporary) revolutionary government in Ansprache "Address."
Plekhanov is therefore completely wrong when he asserts that Marx "did not even admit 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 upon this thought in its concrete formulation in relation to the temporary revolutionary government. Marx does not raise the question of the participation of Social Democrats in the temporary revolutionary government, but Plekhanov depicts that Marx resolves this question absolutely negatively.
Marx says: we, the Social Democrats, were all in the tail. We are organized worse, we need to organize ourselves independently, when the petty-bourgeois democracy, in the event of the success of the revolution, will be in power.
Martynov concludes: we, the Social Democrats, who are now organized much better than the revolutionary petty-bourgeois democracy in Russia and constitute an absolutely 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 this so?
Whose proofs are limited to "repeating words"? Is it not Plekhanov who has compiled his entire baggage from "quotes"?? Miserable baggage.
Vpered does not "criticize" Marx. Mach and Avenarius are a cover for the poverty of Plekhanov's argumentation.
Vpered analyzes specific Russian conditions, about which Plekhanov did not say a word: the relationship of the proletariat and the peasantry, the organization of one and the other, compare the strength of petty-bourgeois democracy and Social Democracy, the moment of the first uprising.
The 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 socialist revolution is not yet near.
"The political tasks of the proletariat would have been determined by them (in correcting this mistake) already on the assumption that the democratic system would remain dominant for a fairly long period. But precisely because of this, they would not yet have resolutely condemned the participation of socialists in a petty-bourgeois government."
Cur? Plekhanov mixes democratic and socialist dictatorship here!!
8) Engels to Turati 7).
a) There is no complete letter.
b) Turati = Millerand. Portfolio. Such a situation?
c) Engels proved to Turati that the revolution would be democratic, not socialist.
Nihil essentially!

UNSUCCESSFUL REFERENCE TO MARX

9) "To participate in a temporary revolutionary government together with the petty bourgeoisie means to betray the proletariat"...
Really? / 1848, 1873 Bakunisten an der Arbeit. } From below ?
From above?
10) Iskra "M 95 from below.
Bakunisten.
11) Iskra № 93 — if it comes spontaneously, we will not back down.

in.
* NOTES TO THE ARTICLE "ON THE TEMPORARY 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 temporary revolutionary government, of the era of the democratic revolution, together with the bourgeoisie?
2. Is it true that Marx in the specified "Address" did not even raise the question of the participation of Social Democracy in a temporary revolutionary government at all?
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 specified "Address" Marx himself noted the strengthening of the petty-bourgeois democratic party and the weakening of the working communist party in recent times?
5 *).

Mr.
AN UNSUCCESSFUL REFERENCE TO MARX.
[Martynov, Marx and Plekhanov.]
In the leading article of Iskra No. 96, Plekhanov tries to defend Iskra's tactics on the question of the participation of Social Democracy in the provisional revolutionary government and to show the incorrectness of the tactics we defended in Vperyod. Unfortunately, 1) Plekhanov did not at all give an exposition of his views on this deeply interesting and important question; 2) he presented the views of Iskra and Vperyod completely incorrectly and inaccurately; 3) the quotations from Marx, to which Plekhanov's article essentially boils down entirely, are cited completely out of place, since they do not relate to the question disputed between Iskra and Vperyod.
[Let's start with Plekhanov's exposition of the essence of the dispute. Plekhanov titled his article "On the Question of Seizing Power." He criticizes "tactics aimed" (obviously, by Vperyod)]*).
*) Stellung der Frage — posing the question.
2) Ansprache — address. See footnote 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 Seizing Power." ("Iskra" No. 96, dated April 18 (5), 1905.) See note 26 on page 260.
6) Sig — why.
7) Engels' letter to Turati, dated January 26, 1894, was printed immediately after Engels' death (1895) under the title: "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 bi-weekly published in Milan under the editorship of F. Turati since 1891. Engels' statement was prompted by a discussion in the Italian Socialist Party in connection with the mass unrest of peasants in Sicily (the so-called hunger riots). Engels gave a general description of the internal situation in Italy and expressed his views on the nature of the impending revolution and the tactics that the revolutionary Marxist party should adhere to. Plekhanov referred to Engels' letter to Turati in a polemic with Lenin. (See G. V. Plekhanov. Works, Vol. XIII, pp. 289-290.) Lenin's response criticizing Plekhanov's understanding of "Engels' Letter" is found in Works, Vol. VII, pp. 268 and 322.
*) The manuscript breaks off here. Ed.