Work in the ISB is divided into two parts: one part is routine: correspondence, distribution of members... etc., and the other is congresses: the Copenhagen Congress and the Zurich Congress.

From the London Congress, one [representative] from the Russian S.-D. [in the ISB] was included. The Plenum also elected Plekhanov, but he refused, saying that one person was enough for the work.

At the Copenhagen Congress, a rapprochement occurred between us; we conversed amicably. I could no longer speak with the Golosists and regarded Trotsky disapprovingly, especially concerning the letter. Toward the end of the session, Plekhanov accepted the Plenum's proposal.

We share one vote. We had no conflicts with him until recently. In Copenhagen, I worked on the cooperative commission. The most interesting thing is the extreme sharpening of relations among the German S.-D.; outwardly unity, but inwardly two different currents. The German S.-D. delegation consists of half from the party and half from the trade unions. It is noticeable that the larger the German delegation becomes, the more the hegemony of the German S.-D. declines. At Stuttgart, they disgraced themselves by voting for the colonial resolution... One of the representatives, for example, says that the expropriation of the capitalists is impossible. It turned out that their program contains no word about expropriation on this matter. They are effectively pursuing a non-S.-D. line. No illusions can be entertained here, and the further we go, the more intense and acute the struggle will be; of course, the mass of the proletariat will not waver. At the Magdeburg Congress, they walked out, but this does not frighten any S.-D.

Among the Czechs, there is a split. We were against this split, finding that the S.-D. must not yield to any chauvinistic or nationalistic agitation. In Austria, there are numerous scandals over what language to write documents in, etc. Plekhanov was the reporter on this split, and his resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority. Trotsky also tried to reconcile here, saying that Adler, the most "peaceful" and opportunist S.-D., was to blame.

Undoubtedly, German Social Democracy is approaching a new epoch—the epoch of socialist revolution; the economic crisis, the military crisis, world complications—all this is bringing closer the symptoms of this epoch. Until now, preparatory work has been going on. Now, however, it is the epoch of battles with the bourgeoisie. And here the difference between reformists and revolutionary Social Democrats is being realized. In Zurich, a meeting of the ISB was convened in connection with Morocco. An incident also occurred here. Molkenbuhr wrote a letter on his own initiative suggesting not to convene. Rosa Luxemburg published this letter, and from this a great fuss arose.

At the last congress, the revolutionary Social Democrats won. Bebel said that he would call R. Luxemburg to account. There was an attempt by the French to include the strike as a weapon in the struggle against war in the resolution. All the revolutionary S.-D. opposed this, pointing out that one cannot reveal to the government which weapon we will take up, which is more convenient where. The proposal was rejected. Bebel raised the question of the non-publication of documents, hinting at R. Luxemburg, demanding a resolution. I took up the defense of Rosa Luxemburg. I quoted Quelch, to Bebel's great indignation. Bebel acted here as a conciliator. The letter published by R. Luxemburg has nothing in common with [other] documents. At most, she should have been judged within the party, and she was judged; but to bring it before the ISB was unjust...

Within the German S.-D., various currents have grown up that are bursting outward; inside the party, it is seething. Decisive actions are on the agenda. A conflict between the reformists and the revolutionary Social Democrats is inevitable.