V III. ARTICLES, NOTES, PLANS
18722
RE: A. V. LUNACHARSKY'S ("VOINOV'S") PAMPHLET ON
THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTY TO TRADE UNIONS.
[December 1907. Finland.]
Comrade Voinov’s work on the question of the relationship of the socialist party of the proletariat to trade unions is liable to arouse a lot of misinterpretations. This happens for two reasons: firstly, carried away by the struggle against a narrow and incorrect understanding of Marxism, with the unwillingness to take into account new demands of the labor movement and to look at the subject more broadly and deeply, the author often expresses himself too generally. He attacks orthodoxy - true, orthodoxy in quotation marks, i.e., pseudo-orthodoxy - or German Social Democracy in general, where in essence his attacks relate only to vulgarizers of orthodoxy, only to the opportunist wing of Social Democracy. Secondly, the author writes for the Russian public, paying little attention to the different nuances in the presentation of the issues he examines on Russian soil. Comrade Voinov’s point of view is infinitely far from the views of Russian syndicalists, Mensheviks, and Socialist-Revolutionaries. But an inattentive or unscrupulous reader can easily latch onto individual phrases or thoughts of Voinov, taking advantage of the fact that the author mainly had French and Italians directly before his eyes, not setting himself the task of dissociating himself from all sorts of Russian muddleheads.
As an example of these latter, let us point to, for example, the Socialist-Revolutionaries. In No. 5 of «Znamya Truda» they declare with their usual * ease: «the Socialist International approved the point of view on the trade union movement which we (!) have always (!) pursued»2. We take «Collection of Articles» No. 1 (1907), published by «Nasha Mysl». Citizen Viktor Chernov castigates Kautsky, remaining silent both about the Mannheim resolution and about Kautsky's struggle against opportunist neutralists!3 The article by Kautsky which the SR horseman jumps upon *, was written on the eve of Mannheim. In Mannheim, Kautsky fought against neutralists. The Mannheim resolution "makes a significant breach in the neutrality of trade unions" (Kautsky's expression in the article about the Mannheim Congress, in Neue Zeit of October 6, 1906)4. And so, in 1907, there appears a critic who poses as a revolutionary, calling Kautsky a "great dogmatist and inquisitor of Marxism," accusing him - entirely in unison with opportunist neutralists! - of tendentiously diminishing the role of trade unions, of seeking to "subordinate" them to the party, etc. If we add to this that the SRs have always stood for the non-partisanship of trade unions, that even in No. 2 of Znamya Truda (July 12, 1907) we read in the editorial: "party propaganda has its place outside the union" 5, then the whole image of SR revolutionism is outlined for us.
When Kautsky waged a struggle against opportunist neutralism and further developed, deepened the theory of Marxism, moving the trade unions to the left, then these gentlemen tore Kautsky to shreds, repeating the words of the opportunists and continuing to defend the non-partisanship of the unions under the guise of noise. When the same Kautsky moved the trade unions even further to the left, correcting Bebel's resolution in Stuttgart, emphasizing the socialist tasks of the trade unions in this resolution, then the gentlemen SRs shouted: the Socialist International approved our point of view!
The question is, are such methods worthy of members of the Socialist International? Does such criticism not testify to a lack of principle and insolence? **
Among the Social Democrats, an example of insolence is the deeply respected by the liberals former revolutionary Plekhanov. In the preface to the pamphlet «We and They», he declares with unparalleled, incomparable self-satisfaction **: the Stuttgart resolution (on trade unions) with my amendment invalidates the London resolution (of the London Congress of the RSDLP)6. Probably, many readers, having read this statement of our magnificent Narcissus, will believe *** that the struggle in Stuttgart was precisely because of Plekhanov's amendment and that in general this amendment had any serious significance.
In fact, this amendment ("one must always keep in mind the unity of the economic struggle") had no serious significance, it did not even relate at all to the essence of the controversial issues in Stuttgart, to the essence of the disagreements in international socialism.
In fact, Plekhanov's delight in "his" amendment has a very vulgar meaning: to mislead readers by diverting their attention **** away from the truly contentious issues of the trade union movement, to cover up the defeat of the idea of neutralism in Stuttgart.
The Stockholm Congress of the RSDLP (1906), at which the Mensheviks won, stood on the point of view of the neutrality of trade unions. The London Congress of the RSDLP took a different position, proclaiming the need to strive for the partisanship of the unions. The Stuttgart International Congress adopted a resolution that «puts an end to the neutrality once and for all», as K. Kautsky rightly expressed it *****. Plekhanov went to the commission of the Stuttgart Congress to defend neutrality, as
* The words: "with their usual ease" are crossed out in the manuscript in pencil. Ed.
* In the manuscript, the words: "the SR horseman jumps upon" are crossed out in pencil and replaced in pencil by N. K. Krupskaya with the words: "Chernov attacks". Ed.
** This paragraph is crossed out in pencil in the manuscript. Ed.
Lenin Miscellany X X V
* In the manuscript, this phrase is corrected in pencil by N. K. Krupskaya as follows: «Among the Social Democrats, Comrade Plekhanov tries to obscure the question of the relationship between the party and trade unions». Ed.
** The words: «with unparalleled, incomparable self-satisfaction» are crossed out in pencil. Ed.
*** The words: «our magnificent Narcissus, will believe» are crossed out in pencil and replaced in pencil by N. K. Krupskaya with one word: «will think». Ed.
**** The beginning of this paragraph is corrected in pencil by N. K. Krupskaya as follows: "In fact, Plekhanov's effort to inflate the significance of this amendment aims to divert the attention of readers." Ed.
***** Vorwärts, 1907, No. 209, Beilage, Kautsky's report to the Leipzig workers on the congress in Stuttgart. See "Calendar for All" for 1908, published by "Zerno", p. 173 in my article on the International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart. [See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, XIII, 89. Ed.]
ARTICLES, NOTES, PLANS

ARTICLES, NOTES, PLANS
115
Voinov recounts this in detail. And Klara Zetkin, in the organ of the women's labor movement of Germany, "Die Gleichheit," writes that "Plekhanov tried with rather unsuccessful arguments to justify some limitation of this principle" * (i.e., the principle of the closest rapprochement of unions with the party).
Thus, the principle of neutrality defended by Plekhanov suffered a fiasco. His arguments were recognized by the German revolutionary Social-Democrats as "unsuccessful." And he [flauntingly], admiring himself **, declares: they accepted "my" amendment, the London resolution loses its significance.
Yes, yes, the Nozdrevian swagger of the socialist respected by liberals, apparently, does not lose any of its significance ***.
Comrade Voinov is wrong, in my opinion, when he says that the German orthodox recognize the idea of storming as harmful, that orthodoxy "had almost accepted the whole spirit of the new Economism." This cannot be said about Kautsky, and Comrade Voinov himself recognizes the correctness of Kautsky's views. Comrade Voinov himself, reproaching the Germans for "talking too little about the role of trade unions as organizers of socialist production," recalls elsewhere the opinion of Liebknecht - the father, who recognized this role in the most vivid expressions. Comrade Voinov also believed Plekhanov in vain, that Bebel deliberately kept silent about the Russian revolution in his welcoming speech, that Bebel does not want to talk about Russia. These words of Plekhanov were simply a crude buffoonery of a socialist deeply respected by liberals ****, and it was not necessary to take them seriously for a minute, [even to allow] it was not even necessary to allow the possibility that there is at least a particle of truth in these words. I, for my part, can attest that during Bebel's speech, van Koll, a representative of the right wing of socialists, sitting next to me in the bureau, was watching precisely whether Bebel would mention Russia. And as soon as Bebel finished, van Koll
* See the same "Calendar for All," p. 173, as well as the collection "Zarnitsy" (St. Petersburg, 1907), where this article from "Die Gleichheit" is translated in full.
** The expression "admiring himself" is crossed out in pencil. Ed.
*** This paragraph is crossed out in pencil. Ed.
**** The words "deeply respected socialist by liberals" are crossed out in pencil. Ed.

turned to me with an expression of his surprise; he did not doubt (as not a single serious member of the congress doubted) that Bebel had forgotten about Russia by accident. Mistakes happen with the best and most experienced speakers. To call the forgetfulness of the old Bebel "characteristic" on the part of Comrade Voinov, in my opinion, is unfair to the highest degree. It is equally deeply unfair to speak in general about the "present" opportunist Bebel. There are no data for such a generalization.
But, in order not to give rise to misunderstandings, I will say here that if someone tried to use these expressions of Comrade Voinov against the revolutionary German Social-Democrats, it would be a dishonest pulling out of individual words. Comrade Voinov sufficiently proved with his entire brochure that he stands on the side of the German revolutionary Marxists (like Kautsky), that he, together with them, is working to eliminate old prejudices, opportunistic templates, and shortsighted self-satisfaction. That is why I was in solidarity in Stuttgart in everything essential with Comrade Voinov, and now I am in solidarity with him in the whole character of his revolutionary criticism. He is a thousand times right when he says that we must now learn not only from the Germans, but also on the Germans. Only ignorant people, who have not yet learned anything from the Germans and therefore do not know the basics, can derive from this a "disagreement" within the revolutionary Social-Democrats. We must criticize the mistakes of the German leaders fearlessly and openly, if we want to be true to the spirit of Marx and help Russian socialists * to be on the height of modern tasks of the labor movement. Bebel, undoubtedly, was mistaken in Essen, when he defended Noske, when he defended the separation of defensive and offensive warfare, when he attacked the method of struggle of the "radicals" against van Koll, when he denied (together with Singer) the failure and incorrectness of the tactics of the German delegation in Stuttgart7. We must not hide these mistakes, but show by their example that Russian Social-Democrats must learn to avoid them, must meet the more strict requirements of revolutionary Marxism. And let not Russian anarchists and syndicalists, liberals and Socialist-Revolutionaries try to gloat over our criticism of Bebel. We will say to these gentlemen:
* "Help Russian socialists" is corrected in ink by Lenin's hand from "educate Russian socialists." Ed.

ARTICLES, NOTES, PLANS

eagles also happen to descend lower than chickens, but chickens never rise like eagles! *
More than two years ago, Mr. Struve, who was then defending the revolution, who was then writing about the necessity of open revolutionary actions, who was then assuring that the revolution must become the power, - this Mr. Struve wrote in No. 71 of the foreign "Liberation": "in comparison with the revolutionism of Mr. Lenin and comrades, the revolutionism of the Western European Social-Democracy of Bebel and even Kautsky is opportunism" **8. I answered then to Mr. Struve: "where and when did I pretend to create some kind of special direction in international Social-Democracy, not identical with the direction of Bebel and Kautsky?" ("Two Tactics," p. 50 of the Russian edition).
In the summer of 1907, I had to point out, in a pamphlet on the question of boycotting the Third Duma, that it would be fundamentally wrong to identify Bolshevism with boycottism or combatism9.
Now, regarding the question of trade unions, it is necessary to emphasize just as decisively that Bolshevism pursues the tactics of revolutionary Social-Democracy in all areas of struggle, in all fields of activity. The difference between Bolshevism and Menshevism is not that the former "denies" work in trade unions or cooperatives, etc., but that the former pursues a different line in the work of propaganda, agitation, and organization of the working class. Now, activity in trade unions undoubtedly acquires enormous significance. In contrast to the neutralism of the Mensheviks, we must conduct this activity in the spirit of rapprochement of unions with the party, the development of socialist consciousness [, strengthening] and understanding of the revolutionary tasks of the proletariat. In Western Europe, revolutionary syndicalism in many countries was a direct and inevitable result of [extremes] of opportunism, reformism, parliamentary cretinism. In our country, the first steps of "Duma activity" also increased opportunism to a great extent, brought the Mensheviks to subservience to the Cadets. Plekhanov,
* The last words: "like eagles don't rise" are corrected in pencil by I. K. Krupskaya's hand: "to eagles don't rise." Ed.
** Works, VIII, 70. Ed.

sshprmmer, In fact, in his political everyday work he has merged with Messrs. Prokopovich and Kuskova. In 1900 he thrashed them for Bernsteineinism, for the fact that they contemplate only the "rear" of the Russian proletariat ("Yademecum for the Editors of 'Rabocheye Delo'," Geneva, 1900). In 1906-1907 the first electoral ballots threw Plekhanov into the arms of these gentlemen, who now contemplate the "rear" of Russian liberalism. Syndicalism cannot but develop on Russian soil as a reaction against this shameful behavior of "outstanding" Social Democrats.

Comrade Voinov is therefore quite right to take his line, urging Russian Social Democrats to learn from the example of opportunism and the example of syndicalism. Revolutionary work in trade unions, shifting the center of gravity from parliamentary Kunststücke to the education of the proletariat, to the rallying of purely class organizations, to extra-parliamentary struggle, the ability to use (and the preparation of the masses for the possibility of successfully using) a general strike, as well as the "December Forms of Struggle" in the Russian Revolution - all this is put forward with particular force as a task of the Bolshevik trend. And the experience of the Russian Revolution facilitates this task for us to a tremendous extent, gives the richest practical guidance, will give a mass of historical material, allowing us to assess in all concreteness new methods of struggle, mass strikes and the use of direct violence. These methods of struggle are least of all "new" for the Russian Bolsheviks, for the Russian proletariat. They are "new" for the opportunists, who are diligently trying to erase from the memory of the workers in the West - the Commune, in Russia - December 1905. To strengthen these memories, to scientifically study this great experience*, to disseminate in the masses the lessons of it and the awareness of the inevitability of the repetition on a new scale of this experience - this task of revolutionary Social Democrats in Russia sets before us immeasurably richer in content perspectives than the one-sided "anti-opportunism" and "anti-parliamentarism" of the syndicalists.

Having exposed [this] syndicalism, as a special trend, Comrade Voinov put forward four accusations (p. 19 and following of his brochure), depicting in full relief its falsity: 1) "anarchic fragmentation of the organization"; 2) nervous agitation of workers instead of creating a solid "citadel of class organization", 3) petty-bourgeois-individualistic features of the ideal and Proudhonist theory; 4) absurd "aversion to politics."

There is no little similarity here with the old "Economism" among Russian Social Democrats. I am therefore not as optimistic as Comrade Voinov about the "reconciliation" with revolutionary Social Democracy of those Economists who have moved to syndicalism. I also think that Comrade Voinov's projects are completely impractical with regard to a "General Workers' Council" in the role of a super-arbitrator, with the participation of Socialist-Revolutionaries10 in such a council. This is a mixing of the "music of the future" with the organizational forms of the present. But I am not at all afraid of Comrade Voinov's perspective: "subordination of political [parties] organizations to class social* organization"... "only then (I continue to quote Comrade Voinov, emphasizing the essential words), when... all professionals will be socialists." The class instinct of the proletarian mass has already begun to manifest itself with full force in Russia. Already now this instinct of the class gives enormous guarantees both against the petty-bourgeois vagueness of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and against the groveling before the Cadets of the Mensheviks. Already now we can boldly say that a mass workers' organization in Russia (if it were created and insofar as it is created for a minute, even by elections, strikes, demonstrations, etc.) will certainly be closest to Bolshevism, to revolutionary Social Democracy.

Comrade Voinov rightly treats the "workers' congress" adventure as an "unserious" undertaking. Let's work hard in trade unions, let's work in all fields on disseminating the revolutionary theory of Marxism in the proletariat and on creating a "citadel" of class organization. Everything else will follow.
* In Voinov-Lunacharsky's article "New Paths" it is printed not "social," but "syndical." Ed.

1 The manuscript represents a notebook in a quarter of a sheet of writing paper (of the usual «student» type) and contains 20 numbered pages of text written in ink by Lenin in a clean copy, with only a few of his own ink corrections. There are a number of corrections in the manuscript made in pencil by N.K. Krupskaya. They are all stipulated in footnotes.

The present article by Lenin is largely devoted to the analysis and criticism of Voinov's (Lunacharsky's) work on the topic indicated in the title. Lenin is dealing with a printed edition of this work in the form of a brochure. It has not been possible to find or more precisely establish its content and title. It is possible that this was Voinov's report, as a delegate of the RSDLP on the Stuttgart International Socialist Congress. This brochure apparently included entirely or for the most part Lunacharsky's article: "New Paths. (Introduction to the report of the RSDLP delegate on the question of the relationship between the party and trade unions at the Stuttgart International Congress)," published in 3 of the Geneva journal «Raduga» for November 1907. In that part of the article where Lenin directly touches on Lunacharsky's work, he largely exhausts the content of the article "New Paths," moreover, the order in which Lenin touches on individual provisions of Lunacharsky corresponds to the order of presentation of the named article, and individual passages, incidentally quoted by Lenin, mostly coincide with its formulations.

The article was written by Lenin, in all likelihood, while still in Russia in December 1907. The grounds for establishing this date are as follows: 1) the printed announcement of the publication of JM 3 of the journal "Raduga," with mention of the article "New Paths," was published in "Proletary" Λ1 19 of 18 (5) November; 2) the brochure promised in a footnote to this article with Voinov-Lunacharsky's report on the Stuttgart Congress "in the near future" could have been published at the latest in early December; 3) the notebook containing the manuscript of Lenin's article is of Russian origin; 4) after arriving abroad in letters to Lunacharsky, Lenin no longer mentions this brochure and his article about it.

Lenin's article was never published, and is printed for the first time in the present Collection.
* «Znamya Truda» — the central organ of the party of Socialist-Revolutionaries, published from July 1, 1907 to April 1914. A total of 53 issues were published. Initially published in Russia, but after the failure in early 1908, publication was transferred to Paris.

Lenin quotes the editorial article "The International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart" from "Znamya Truda" No. 5 of September 12, 1907.
8 V. Chernov's article "The Professional Movement and Marxist Orthodoxy" in the legal Socialist-Revolutionary "Collection of Articles" "Μ 1 (publishing house "Our Thought," St. Petersburg, 1907, pp. 47-74).
4 Kautsky's article on the Mannheim Congress of the German Social Democratic Party, "Der Parteitag von Mannheim" ("The Mannheim Congress"), was printed in "Die Neue Zeit" JVs 1 of October 3, 1906 (year of publication 25, 1906-1907, volume I).

ARTICLES, NOTES, plans

6 Leading article "Our Position in the Trade Union Movement"
from "NS 2 of *Znamya Truda*."
β The brochure "We and They," published by Plekhanov in Geneva in 1907,
is a collection of his speeches at the London Congress of the RSDLP.
Here, Lenin cites the end of Plekhanov's preface to his brochure
"We and They." Plekhanov formulates this passage as follows: "...this resolution
[the resolution of the London Congress of the RSDLP on trade unions. Ed.] has lost all practical significance in view of the resolution recently
adopted in Stuttgart with my amendment."
7 Soon after the Stuttgart International Congress, the congress of the German Social-Democratic Party took place in Essen. The opportunist majority of the German delegation to the Stuttgart Congress supported
the extreme opportunist, the Dutchman van Kol, who spoke at the congress
on the colonial question with a draft resolution from the commission; the resolution
defended colonial policy, which supposedly can play a civilizing role under the socialist
regime. The Congress rejected this proposal of the commission. The Essen congress of the German party confirmed
the Stuttgart resolution, i.e., rejected the opinion of the majority of the German delegation at the Stuttgart Congress. Bebel and Singer took a "conciliatory" position. Bebel spoke out against van Kol, but also attacked the left for their way of fighting the opportunists. On
the issue of militarism at the Essen congress, Bebel defended
Deputy Noske, who said in the Reichstag that in the event of an offensive
war against Germany, German Social Democrats would defend the fatherland.
In his speech on this matter, Bebel proposed distinguishing
defensive wars from offensive ones.
8 Lenin quotes P. Struve's article "How to Find Oneself?" (*Osvobozhdenie* No. 71, dated May 31 (18), 1903).
9 The passage Lenin mentions from his article "Against the Boycott"
(in the brochure "On the Boycott of the Third Duma"), is formulated as follows: "To confuse Bolshevism with 'boycottism' is the same mistake as confusing it with 'combatism'" (Works, XII, 37).
10 Lunacharsky, speaking in the article "New Paths" about the "necessity of a close, organic connection" between the party and the trade unions, put forward a project for organizing a "General Labor Council" as
a super-arbitrator in disagreements, with the inclusion of representatives
of other parties, such as the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
20524
REFERAT PLAN.
[First half of 1908. Geneva.]
Marxism:
(a) Theory of Surplus Value (Mehrwert) * (β) Economic Development
* Surplus value. Ed.

(γ) Class Struggle.
(δ) Philosophical Materialism.
(α) 1. Previous socialists: "unfair" etc. Symptom of feeling, not understanding
2. "Labor principle" (in Russia)
3. Commodity Production
4. Capitalism. Theory of Mehrwert
(β) 1. Economic Development. Industry (1907)
2. Russian artisans
3. Agriculture.
4. Railroads and Banks Trusts.
5. Financial Capital
6. Societalization of Production. Socialized labor
and
Individual appropriation.
(γ) 1. Proletariat and its solidarity.
(Strong peasantry — pauperization — prole- tarianization)
2. Separate strikes. "Battle" of machines.
3. Trade Unions and movement
4. Political Struggle:
England — Liberals
France — Radicals (Republicans])
Germany — Liberals (60s) and Opportunists]
5. Revolutionary Goals of the Working Class: Expropriation of Capital
6. Revolutionary Struggle and Struggle for Reform
(δ) Philosophical Materialism
1. Theory of Mach = the whole world.
2. 2 main worldviews and Philosophical
starting points: popovshchina and materialism
3. Engels (Ludwig Feuerbach)
4. 1789 France — Hegel
and
Feuerbach Germany (before 48)
5. Dialectical] Materialism

ARTICLES, NOTES, PLANS
6. Russia: Chernyshevsky
Narodniks
Present Opportunists (Bogdanov)
Agrarian Question* (a) Commodity Production in Agriculture
(β) Small Production versus Large (γ) Wage labor (δ) Rent.

PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION OF ENGLISH AND GERMAN
WORKERS**1.
[September, after 20, 1908. Geneva.]
As is known, the bourgeois press of England and Germany, and
especially the street leaflets, have long been conducting a chauvinist
campaign, inciting one country against the other. Competition
between English and German capitalists in the world market
is becoming increasingly fierce. The former primacy of England and the undivided
dominance of her in the world market have gone into the past.
Germany belongs to the number of particularly rapidly developing
capitalist countries, and the products of its industry are increasingly
finding sales abroad. The struggle for colonies, clashes
of trade interests have become, in capitalist society, one of the main causes of wars. And it is not surprising that
capitalists of both countries consider war between England and
Germany*** inevitable, and [...]**** representatives of the military there
and here are directly desirable. English chauvinists want to undermine the forces of a dangerous competitor by breaking the naval power of
Germany, while still immeasurably weaker in this field than England. German junkers and generals, with the Bourbon Wilhelm
II at the head, are eager to fight England, hoping for the

* The outline "Agrarian Question" is written at the beginning of the first page
of the manuscript, next to (on the right side) the short plan of the referat "Marxism"
(β, β, γ, δ), before the further detailed plan of it. Ed.
** Lenin's title. Ed.
*** A typo in the manuscript: "France." Ed.
**** One crossed-out word is not deciphered. Ed.

opportunity to use the superiority of land forces and dreaming of
drowning out the growing discontent of the working masses and the exacerbation of the class struggle in Germany with the noise of military victories.
English and German workers decided to publicly oppose the growing danger of war. The workers' newspapers of both
countries have long been conducting a steady struggle against chauvinism and militarism. But now some more impressive
expression of the will of the working class was needed than through the press.
English workers decided to send a delegation to Berlin to
declare, through a magnificent demonstration, the united resolve
of the proletariat of both countries to wage war against war.
The demonstration took place in Berlin on Sunday, September 20 (7).
The deputies of the English workers were able, this time, to speak unhindered
before the Berlin proletariat. Two years ago, when J. Jaurès, on behalf of the French working class, decided to speak in Berlin at a meeting of social-
democratic masses in order to protest against the chauvinists
of the bourgeoisie, the German government forbade him to speak
before the German workers. This time, the German government did not dare to expel the delegates of the English proletariat.
A huge workers' meeting was convened in one of the largest
halls of Berlin. Up to 5,000 people immediately filled the room, and many thousands had to stay in the garden and on the street.
Order was maintained by elected workers with red ribbons
on their sleeves. Comrade Legien, a well-known leader of the professional
trade unions of Germany (the so-called "free" i.e., in fact Social Democratic unions), greeted the English
delegation on behalf of the entire politically and professionally
organized working class of Germany. Fifty years ago — he said — French and English workers were already demonstrating in favor of peace 2. Then, the vanguard - the socialists did not yet have organized masses. Now the trade unions
of England and Germany together number 4 1/2 million members. On behalf of this army, the English delegates and the Berlin meeting are now speaking, declaring that the decision on war and peace lies in the hands of the working class.
The delegate of the English workers, Maddison, in his response
condemned the chauvinist persecution of the bourgeoisie and handed over a petition signed by 3,000 workers, the "Address of the Workers of Britain to the Workers

ARTICLES, NOTES, PLANS
Germany." Among the signatories, he indicated, are representatives
of both trends in the English labor movement (i.e., both social democrats and supporters of the "independent labor party,"
who do not yet stand on any consistently socialist point of view). The address states that wars serve the interests of the propertied classes. The working masses bear all the burdens
of wars; the propertied classes benefit from the people's misfortunes.
Let the workers unite to fight militarism, to ensure peace!
After speeches by other English deputies and a representative
of German Social Democracy, Richard Fischer, the meeting concluded
with the unanimous adoption of a resolution that condemns
"the selfish and short-sighted policy of the ruling and exploiting
classes" and expresses readiness to act in accordance with the decision of the Stuttgart International Congress, i.e., with all
its strength and resources to fight against war3. The meeting dispersed
in an orderly fashion with the singing of the Workers' Marseillaise. Street demonstrations
did not occur. The Berlin police and local military authorities
were deceived in their expectations. German order is characterized by the fact that the most peaceful demonstration of workers
does not pass without a police and military demonstration. The Berlin
garrison was mobilized. Detachments of troops were deployed according to a strict plan in the most diverse places of the city -
primarily so that it would not be easy to notice where the soldiers were hidden
and in what numbers. Police patrols circled the streets and squares near the assembly hall and especially the road
from there to the palace. The palace was surrounded by a real ring of disguised police and detachments of troops hidden in the courtyards.
A complex system of police pickets was organized - groups of policemen stood on street corners - police
officers were dispatched to all "important" places - police
cyclists carried out the duties of scouts and informed the military authorities
of every step of the "enemy" - bridges and crossings over the canal were guarded threefold.
"They were guarding the threatened monarchy," writes Vorwärts sarcastically about all these
measures of Wilhelm II's government.
A rehearsal was taking place, - let us add from ourselves. Wilhelm II and the German bourgeoisie were rehearsing the military struggle
with the insurgent proletariat. Such rehearsals are undoubtedly and in any case useful both for the working masses and for the soldiers. Ça ira
(the thing goes!), as the French workers' song says. Repeated rehearsals may be very slow now, but they very surely lead to a great historical denouement.
1 This article was written by Lenin for Proletary. In No. 36 of
Proletary of October 16 (3), 1908, at the end of the last page,
there is a message from the editors that a number of articles and correspondences, including this article, are postponed to the next issue. Almost all of
the material listed there was printed in the next and partly in
other upcoming issues. But this article never appeared in print.
2 It concerns the Facts preceding the organization of the International
Workingmen's Association (First International): about the trip of a delegation
of French workers in 1862 to London for the international exhibition to
establish relations with English workers and about the trip of the same delegation
in the following 1863 also to London to an international rally
to demonstrate sympathy and solidarity of the international proletariat
in relation to the Polish uprising.
3 See the resolution of the Stuttgart International Congress on militarism and international conflicts in the documents and materials for
Lenin's Works, XII, 444.
18462
THE CAPITALIST STRUCTURE OF AGRICULTURE
IN GERMANY ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OF JUNE 12, 1907*1.
[End of September, later than 24, - beginning of October 1910. Paris!]
Germany belongs to [one of] the most advanced and most rapidly developing capitalist countries.
Censuses of agricultural enterprises are conducted in it
almost better than anywhere else in Europe. Therefore, the interest with which both German and Russian literature
met the results of the last census, 1907 (the first and
second censuses were in 1882 and 1895). Bourgeois economists and revisionists in one voice sang that Marxism -
for the hundredth and thousandth time! - is refuted by the census data.
Mr. Valentinov, I recall, in "Kievskaya Mysl" last year beat a big drum about this2. Mr. Professor**a
1 This passage represents the beginning of an unfinished article, which
was later rewritten by Lenin under the title "The Capitalist Structure of Modern Agriculture" (Lenin Collection XIX, 357-376).
The content of the printed passage was included in the second paragraph of the mentioned
article.
* Lenin's title. -Ed.
** Here the manuscript breaks off. Ed.

ARTICLES, NOTES, PLANS

2 N. Valentinov's article "On the occasion of the last German census"
("Kievskaya Mysl" No. 308 of November 7, 1909).
2 "Mr. Professor" is Professor K. G. Vobly, author of the article "Trends in the Agrarian Evolution of Germany" (in the journal "Economist of Russia"
No. 36 of September 11, 1910), to which Lenin refers in his article
"The Capitalist Structure of Modern Agriculture" (see Lenin Collection XIX, 360).
1922о
LETTER TO THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC FRACTION
OF THE III STATE DUMA.
[March 1911. Paris]
Comrade Poletaev passed on to us through Lenin the plan for publishing
the report of the Social Democratic Fraction, discussed by the Fraction before the dispatch
of Poletaev to Berlin.
We, for our part, met the Fraction's plan with full sympathy
and propose to agree on the following final condition.
We are forming here an editorial commission for the publication
of the report from Steklov* + Semashko + Zinoviev (or Kamenev}.
The commission undertakes (1) the preparation of a report plan and
communication with the Fraction to approve this plan; (2) efforts
[before the Z. B. Central Committee and the banks] to obtain money from the party, with the Fraction giving no less than 500 rubles. [;] (3) the final editing
of the report (20 sheets) by the deadline (such and such).
The answer to this proposal should come from the Fraction as
a whole.
[signatures] Pokrovsky + Gegechkori]**!.
1 Lenin's note in brackets:
"(signatures Pokrovsky + Gegechkori])" apparently means a draft of the signatures under the expected official
response of the Fraction to this letter. The following response came from the Fraction:
"April 6, 1911. St. Petersburg. Dear
Comrade Vladimir Ilyich! We discussed the conditions you proposed for
compiling a report on the Duma work of the Fraction. Regarding the composition of the editorial
commission, we consider it necessary to point out that the participation of Yu. M.
(Steklov Ed.) we consider absolutely necessary. As for the deadline
* In the manuscript, the word "Steklova" is crossed out and, instead, the following is written in Zinoviev's hand: "the person you indicated." Ed.
** Further, under the text of the letter, there is the following address written in Lenin's hand, which is not directly related to this letter:
"August Bebel. 97. Hauptstrasse. 97. Schöneberg. Berlin." ("To August Bebel.
Berlin. Schöneberg, Main Street, 97"). Ed.