NOTEBOOK

«ο»

(«OMICRON»)
Contents “Die Gleichheit.” “Bremer Bürger-Zeitung”
Chemnitz’s “Volksstimme” – Quotations
Lorenz 17, “Die Gleichheit”
+ Miscellaneous
N. V.:

1. — Marx: The 1878 Article on the International.
A Note on National Self-Determination.

2. — The Basel Manifesto and the Chemnitz Resolution. 3–6. The journal “Die Gleichheit,” August 5, 1914. 7 (and 12). Delbrück.

8–11. “Volksstimme” (Chemnitz).

13. Literature on the Police Force.

14. Lench on the Police (1912).

15. K. Kautsky, 1910 and 1912.

16. B. Bax on Imperialism (1900). 18–20. Lench: “Social Democracy”...

21–22. Chemnitz’s “Volksstimme.”

23–29. Ulbricht. Nationalities and Imperialism.

30. Fr. Adler and Rennert.

31. Hilferding (Kautskian Perspectives).

32–33. Engels and Marx on the English Working Class, etc.
+
76

33. K. Kautsky on Patriotism. 34–35. O. Bauer. 36–37. Engels. 38–39. E. Heilmann (“Die Glocke”). 40–41. Liebknecht V. and Marx (Letter to Liebknecht, January 18, 1878). 42–44. Greilich and the “Grütlianer.”

45. “Schweizerische M e t a l l a r b e i t e r - Z e i t u n g.” NB: Engels (on the Working Class in England) – p. 14. + “N e i e e Rheinische Z e i t u n g,” pp. 46 and 47. K. Kautsky on Religion… p. 15 (?). Socialists and Blacks (America)… 15. Italian and Polish Workers in Switzerland 17. Japanese Workers and American Worker Chauvinism… 41.
N ota bene: >The Development of Marx’s Views on the War of 1870: p. 22.
Marx on France’s War for Freedom (January 1871): 22.
Marx on Ireland: 22.
Marx on the Coming War (in 1874) – 22.
Literature (References)… 13 and 16.
NB
Bax on Imperialism, 1900… p. 16. Monopolies and Technology… 17. The Labor Movement in Canada… 17.
Kautsky on Religion (Vulgarization) – 15.
French Constitutions of 1791 and 1848 on National Wars: p. 30.

NOTEBOOK «ο» (“OMICRON”)
“The Epochs” of Modern History, p. 28.

A Saying of Saint-Simon – 49.

“SCHMOLLER’S YEARBOOK,” 1915, FIRST ISSUE
In the article “Public Nutrition in Wartime and Peacetime,” Karl Ballod (“Schmoller’s Jahrbuch,” 1915, First Issue) presents an analysis—albeit incomplete—of data on public nutrition:

Vegetable and Animal Foodstuffs.
Total Daily Per Capita Consumption

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|including|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|
Order

Calories
Vegetable
Animal
4. Germany 2708 2164 544
2. England 2900 1925 975
5. Italy 2607 2367 240
3. France 2749 2205 544
6. Austria 2486 2030 456
1. U.S.A. 2925 1870* 1054
7. Russia 2414** 2235 279
8. Japan 1814 1764 50

   

Germany
Vegetable + Animal
2103 + 294 = 2397
     150 150
2103 + 444 = 2547
61     61
2164 + 444 = 2608
     100
2164 + 544 = 2708
England

1925

975

2900
|

|

|

|————|

|

|

|

My order of countries. For Germany, Ballod’s figures are not fully broken down into animal and vegetable components. My own breakdown is based on his partial data.
————

Ibidem, Egger’s article. “Marxist Neocriticism” on Adler, who sought to reconcile Marxism with Kantianism.

Ibidem, Schmoller’s short article on the correspondence between Marx and Engels: dismissive of revolution; he argues that revolution should be replaced by reform (p. 432).

* There is an error in Ballod’s figures here; it should read: 1871. Ed.
** Same correction; it should read: 2514. Ed.

Trade unions are stronger than the party; bureaucracy (5–10 thousand members) within the social-democratic movement… “In short, the Marxist German Workers’ Party is either in the process of disintegration or undergoing bourgeois degeneration—no matter how vigorously it may deny this” (p. 424).
NB, in the same volume, the article: Georg Simmel. “Soil Fertility as a Historical Factor.”
MARX. THE 1878 ARTICLE ON THE INTERNATIONAL. A NOTE ON NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION
NB Marx (1865). (and 1878) on national self-determination
In “Die Neue Zeit,” XX, 1, p. 585 (1901–02), M. Bach translated K. Marx’s English-language article from 1878: “The History of the International Workingmen’s Association, Composed by Mr. George H. Gowell” 60. Marx treats Gowell—with disdain (one of the typical liberal labor politicians), correcting several of his false assertions about the International, asserting that he, Marx, was the author of “The Civil War in France” and that he had long ago published this work in “The Daily News,” while also remarking on the International’s transition into a new, “higher” form—and offering other private observations. Incidentally, Marx writes: “By the way, the point in the program which I had the honor to present before the General Council” (for the 1865 conference) “reads: ‘The necessity of abolishing Muscovite influence in Europe, based on the application of the principle of nations’ right to self-determination and through the restoration of Poland on a democratic and socialist foundation’” (p. 586). ((In “The Secular Chronicle,” Volume X, No. 5, August 4, 1878. A periodical of a freethinking, republican orientation. Its publisher, Harriet Law, was a member of the International.)) ((Italics mine.))

THE “O” NOTEBOOK (“OMICRON”)
THE BASEL MANIFESTO AND THE CHEMNITZ RESOLUTION
Imperialism. In Grüenberg’s “Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus,” 1915 (Issues 1 and 2), the resolution adopted by the Party Conference in Chemnitz (September 1912 [15–21 September 1912]) on imperialism is reprinted (pp. 314–315). The resolution emphatically underscores that the export of capital, the relentless drive for “new spheres of capital deployment,” the consolidation of capitalist interests, the influence wielded by capitalists over states, and the “urge toward expansion”—the quest to subjugate “vast territories across the globe from an economic standpoint”… The ultimate outcome, it is stated, is that “a shameless, predatory, and conquering policy… is but the inevitable consequence of these imperialist ambitions for territorial aggrandizement.”
From this arises: conflicts among nations—along with the looming threat of war and the vested interests of suppliers of “war materials.” …“violent imperialism”
To mitigate its temporary consequences—through free trade, “agreements among nations,” and the like—the final clause of the resolution reads:
“For the task of the proletariat is to transform capitalism, raised to its highest stage, into a socialist society—and thereby secure peace, independence, and freedom for the peoples, once and for all.”
Ibidem, p. 324—on the occasion of the vote on Rosa Luxemburg’s amendment (concerning mass strikes) at the Jena Congress (1913):
For Rosa—144 votes = 30%; against… 336
480
Ibidem, pp. 306–311—The Basel Manifesto (24–25 November 1912). NB, ibidem, a review of O. Festi’s work:
O. Festi. “The Workers’ Movement at the Dawn of the July Monarchy.” Paris, 1908 (359 pages). 10 francs. His other work: “The Lyon Uprising of 1831.” “Annates des sciences politiques,” 1910 (pp. 85–103).

JOURNAL “EQUALITY,” 5 AUGUST 1914 “Die Gleichheit,” 1914, No. 23, 5 August 1914.
“WAR TO WAR”
The first note, “War to War”—a quotation from the resolution of the Stuttgart Congress of 1912—stipulates that, in the event of war, the International Socialist Bureau should be convened without delay, and that every possible means must be employed to oppose war. Should war nevertheless break out, then—and so forth.
“PROLETARIAN WOMEN, BE PREPARED!”
The second article: “Proletarian Women, Be Prepared!”
Written after the declaration of war against Serbia, but before the outbreak of the European war.
Austria, it is claimed, reckons that Russia and the other powers will scarcely be able to wage war. Austrian “imperialism,” it is said, is nothing more than a “crime.” “It” (Austrian imperialism) “fights solely in defense of the reactionary Habsburg dynasty, driven by the insatiable lust for gold and power of heartless, unscrupulous large landowners and capitalists”…
German newspapers are calling for war in “shameless fashion”...
“This must never come to pass. The proletarians of Germany—men and women alike—must prove through their actions that they have awakened, that they have matured for freedom…”
The German government insists that it seeks peace. “But the people have seen clearly that the language of government officials is as double‑tongued as that of a serpent.”
The bourgeoisie is chauvinistic—but “Only the proletariat will stand forth with its broad chest to confront the looming calamity of world war…”
In Russia, it is the struggle of the proletariat that most effectively delays the onset of war.
“Let us not be more timid or weaker than they” (= the Russian workers).
“Let us not waste a single moment. War stands at the threshold… Let us all emerge from factories and workshops, from huts and attics, to launch a mass protest…”
“The exploited masses are strong enough to bear upon their shoulders the entire edifice of modern order… So how can it be that they should prove so weak as to retreat before hardship, to shrink from danger, and

THE “O” NOTEBOOK (“OMICRON”)
to succumb to death when the call to fight for peace and freedom rings out? Will they truly open the way for militarism—militarism that has only just been denounced before the broadest public as the brutal executioner of their sons and brothers?”
The brotherhood of nations is no “empty chimera” for the working class; it is a question of life itself—a matter of “solidarity among the exploited of all nations.”
“It” (this solidarity) “must not allow a proletarian to raise a deadly weapon against another proletarian. It must instill in the masses the resolve to employ every available means of resistance in the struggle against war. The all‑conquering force that the proletarian masses will bring to bear against the fury of world war will mark the victory won in their liberation struggle. The revolutionary energy and passionate fervor of their uprising will draw persecution upon them, bring dangers in their wake, and demand sacrifices from them. But what of it? There are moments in the lives of individuals—and in the lives of nations—when everything can be won, provided one stakes everything on the line. Such a moment has arrived. Proletarian women, be prepared!” (p. 354).
End of article “POLITICAL REVIEW”
And in “Political Review” (p. 363), it is noted that “The revolutionary forces of the proletarian masses in the countries of Western Europe still lie largely dormant—but they exist, and it is precisely the torch of war that can awaken them.”
(For revolution, it is argued, is already germinating not only in Russia, but also “in other European countries”...)
Here, too, a brief note on the rise of strikes and barricades in Russia, followed by ten lines on the Brussels Conference of 16–18 July 1914, where unity, it is said, will lend strength to the movement…
DELBRÜCK. “GOVERNMENT AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE” Hans Delbrück. “Government and the Will of the People.” Berlin, 1914. By and large, a thoroughly reactionary piece, rife with manipulations of concepts designed to undermine democracy. Everything and everyone is arrayed against democracy—numerous sophisms, historical examples, and the like.

Instructive is the exposure of bourgeois (**)
democracy (with references to works by English authors, for example, that expose its true nature).
Literature: (**)
Wilhelm Hasbach. “Modern Democracy” (1912). Adolf Tecklenburg. “The Development of Electoral Rights in France Since 1789.” I. Unold. “Politics in the Light of the Theory of Evolution” (a work by a journalist). Lowell. The Constitution of England. Belloc and Chesterton. “The System of Parties.”

2) The Polish Question. The author is an opponent of Prussian Polish policy, for he contends that it has proven utterly fruitless.
Page 1. What, then, is a “people”? The German people? – “We have ‘many millions – Poles, Danes, Frenchmen’” (p. 1).
“In Alsace–Lorraine there are also those who speak German, yet they constantly declare that they refuse to be politically affiliated with the German people” (p. 1).
Hegel on the “People”
Hegel’s dictum: “The people is that part of the state which does not know what it wants” (p. 41)...
NB:
A reactionary on self‑determination and nations “It is plainly impossible that every single, arbitrarily selected segment of the people should possess the right to self‑determination. If we were to grant this right to the Alsatians–Lorrainers as a whole, then why not extend it to each of the three tribes—namely, the Swabians, the Franks, and the French? And why not, in the end, recognize this right for every single community?” (p. 2)
On Social Democrats: Michels acknowledges that Social Democrats are losing their revolutionary edge—driven by a fear for the organizations themselves. “Indeed, from another perspective, it has long been predicted that as such a revolutionary party grows, it does not draw closer to the goal of genuine revolution; rather, it becomes increasingly estranged from it internally” (p. 80). And on pp. 82–83, he argues against Mehring: organizations always require leaders; even the most educated masses need them. “Whether these leaders use their authority to bring about revolution and spark a universal upheaval—risking, in doing so, not the destruction of a non‑existent state or a non‑existent society, but of themselves—or whether they instead choose, from time to time, to strike compromises—that is the question” (p. 83), a question which Mehring dismisses without offering any evidence. (Written in 1914. Preface: November 11, 1913.)
Mehring responds to Delbrück, asserting that he, Mehring, did not write this article—and that, in essence, he is very, very weak when it comes to arguing that Social Democrats harbor the greatest “fears” of bureaucracy (Die Neue Zeit, 1913–14, vol. 32, no. 1, p. 971).
NB: The number of civil servants in Germany amounts to roughly 1,350,000—about one‑tenth of the electorate: 13,300,000 in 1907, p. 182.
Prussian policies of Germanization toward the Poles have so far cost 1 billion marks. Why, then, “a complete bankruptcy”? (p. 161).
The German school system breeds resentment among the Poles: Polish children “know, through their own lived experience, the full bitterness of foreign domination, for there is no more profound affront to national consciousness than the imposition of a foreign language” (p. 162).
The Poles are Polonizing the cities. Of the four estates—nobility, clergy, peasants, and bourgeoisie—the latter alone remains irreconcilable. German colonization not only stirs up resentment among the Poles but also unites them nationally. A trade boycott: “from one’s own to one’s own.”
The Poles cannot be “reconciled” (p. 171); rather, they must be divided—and efforts should be made to foster the emergence of a Prussian–Polish party (p. 172).

“Even the reconciled Poles, of course, remain, in theory—as we have put it—‘Prussians for a limited term’” (p. 174)—this is inevitable, but we must pursue a policy such that “the ideally possible term of withdrawal [Kündigung] never actually comes to pass.”
“For any foreign policy, it is of great importance what reputation the people enjoy among other great, culturally advanced nations. As for the German people—let us not indulge in any illusions on this score—they are the least liked of all, and it is by no means merely envy—though we are quick to invoke envy as a convenient excuse—that leads other nations to regard us with such suspicion. It is our flawed national policy that, to a significant degree, has made us so universally hated” (p. 175): the Poles and the Danes (NB) cry out to the entire world about us!!
“PEOPLE’S VOICE” (Chemnitz)
“AGAINST BOTH JUNIUSES” “Volksstimme” (Chemnitz), supplement to No. 131 (June 8, 1916).
Article: “Against Both Juniuses.”
“Anyone who judges solely by the monstrous sacrifices and hardships of this war, anyone who speaks only in a fit of rage and despair, of course cannot hope to prove anything politically. But for those who do not wish to decide blindly, who investigate and think carefully, the situation now seems, perhaps, quite clear. Our readers will recall from our reports on Junius’s pamphlet—which sets itself the task of persuading the German proletariat that it has the greatest interest in Germany’s defeat, and that the working class must direct all its strength toward that end—it is no mere coincidence that the anonymous author of the Pan-Germanist pamphlet, which viciously attacks the Reich Chancellor and emerges from the circles of Tirpitzian opposition—and whose views are both annexationist and driven to bloodthirsty madness—chose the pseudonym Junius Alter, the Second Junius. Both Juniuses—each advocating either Germany’s defeat or Germany’s global hegemony—actually work hand in hand. And as we read the pamphlet of the First Junius, we often wondered whether it was truly written by someone who had lost all sense of reason…”

NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
a social democrat—and not merely a Russian provocateur! The German working class will drive both Juniuses from its midst. It will continue to wage a tenacious struggle against external enemies until they demonstrate a willingness to conclude a reasonable peace, and against internal foes who seek to shed precious German blood in the service of狂妄 conquestist schemes. Such is the policy of social democracy, and the history of the workers’ movement will one day thank those leaders who, in these very days, are so energetically advancing this policy in the Reichstag—defying all attacks and slander.
The end. The entire article.
“ABSOLUTELY CORRECT”; “Volksstimme” (Chemnitz), 1916, No. 133 (Saturday, June 10, 1916):
“Absolutely correct. In response to our remarks on Comrade Dr. Lench’s speeches concerning the colonial question, the ‘Bremer Burger-Zeitung’ writes:
‘The Chemnitz-based “Volksstimme” appears to attach great significance to the cessation of party strife. In doing so, it is likely speculating on the prospects that are opening up for the reunification of social patriots, social imperialists, and social pacifists—thanks to the conduct even of the far‑left wing of the party center. The Chemnitz party organ is probably not mistaken in this regard. As for left‑radicalism, however, the newspaper is, of course, hoping in vain that it will be reunited with the social patriots.’
We can assure the Bremen newspaper that its assessment is entirely correct. We do, in fact, place the utmost importance on seeing party strife either brought to an end—or at the very least (sic!) confined within such limits (sic!) that it no longer poses a threat to organizational unity. We still firmly hope that the social pacifists—that is, in the jargon of the ‘Bremer Burger-Zeitung,’ the Gaase–Lede­bur group—will once again join forces with the social patriots (by which we mean ourselves) and with the social imperialists—here we refer to trade union leaders like Lench, Kunow, and others—in a single, cohesive

II social democracy. As for the Rühlé–Kniff group—which has already declared that the split within the party is a prerequisite for its future activities” (emphasis added by the Chemnitz “Volks-stimme”)—“we know full well that it will not go along with this. But the proletariat can bear this loss without compromising its fighting capacity.”
((the entire article)) “BREMER BÜRGER-ZEITUNG” “ISG AND THE ‘INTERNATIONAL’ GROUP”
“Bremer Bürger-Zeitung.” 1916, No. 139, June 16, 1916. “The International Socialists of Germany and the ‘International’ Group” 62
Comrade Kniff writes to us from his vacation:
“Two days ago, the ‘Bremer Bürger-Zeitung’ published an editorial note accompanying the appeal of the ‘International’ Group—a note that may inadvertently foster misconceptions about the relationship between the International Socialists of Germany (ISG) and the ‘International’ Group.”
We have spoken repeatedly about the relationship between these groups, especially in No. 77 (dated March 31) in our leading article.
There, one can read:
“The opposition consists of two fundamentally distinct factions: the party center (Kautsky… Gaase–Lede­bur… ‘Die Neue Zeit’… ‘Leipziger Volkszeitung,’ ‘Vorwärts’…)—and the left-radical wing, to which belong… the ISG and the ‘International’ Group… (‘Lichtstrahlen,’ ‘Bremer Bürger-Zeitung,’ the Braunschweig ‘Volksfreund,’ ‘Der Sozialdemokrat’ [Stuttgart]), as well as, though not always consistently, certain Rhineland organs.”
The Braunschweig ‘Volksfreund’ was a left‑radical publication under the editorship of Talgheimer—but now, under the editorship of Wese­meyer, it ‘represents the viewpoint of the center.’
In No. 74 (March 28), the ‘Bremer Bürger-Zeitung’ printed—while Genke was absent—a note from the Braunschweig ‘Volksfreund’ stating that this newspaper stood (at that time, it did stand) on the position of the ‘International’ Group (and saw in the ‘leading theses of the Spartacus Letters’ its own ‘tactical and principled program’)...

The notebook “ο” (“OMICRON”)
“Thus, the ISG and the ‘International’ group are not identical. Both represent left-radicalism and, in tactical terms, are distinguished above all by their opposition to the party center and to the ‘Social-Democratic Business Cooperation.’ Yet while the ISG adopted this stance from the very outset, the ‘International’ group only gradually moved away from the opposition that had long been rallying around Ledebour and Gaaze. The ‘Bremer Bürger-Zeitung’ once hailed this process as a further step toward greater clarity (No. 74, March 28)… Since then, the ‘International’ group has waged a sharp and energetic struggle against the ‘Social-Democratic Business Cooperation’ in its ‘Spartacus’ letters.”
(cited from the latest ‘Spartacus’ letter).
“In their attitude toward private property” (private property—private property belonging to the ‘Social-Democratic Business Cooperation’??) “the ISG and the ‘International’ group, as stated, are entirely in agreement with one another, although they do diverge on certain other issues.”
Both groups operate “within the framework of this organization,” “until such time as it becomes impossible for them to do so due to the tyranny of party bureaucracy”...
This is what matters, for too often mistakes are made—and attempts are made to ‘erase the boundary between the center and left-radicalism’…
“How far both groups will advance along the path of separate organizational existence depends, of course, entirely on the evolution of intra-party relations. In any case, for the sake of clarity, it is certainly to be welcomed that they distinguish themselves externally through their respective names.” (End.)
Johann Kniff
GENKE. “NOT IDENTICAL, BUT THE SAME”
Ibidem, No. 140 (June 17, 1916).
Genke’s reply: “Not identical, but the same…”
…“I no longer remembered ever having read about the differences between the two groups and their higher unity in left-radicalism. Perhaps this lapse in memory was facilitated by a lack of interest in such sectarian groupings.”
+
63

“I myself belong to neither of these groups”…
I have always stood for ‘socialist principles,’ etc., etc., and so forth—nothing concrete.
Genke “ANOTHER PERIODICAL PUBLICATION IN BREMEN”
No. 141 (June 19, 1916)—a reprint of the appeal on ‘Workers’ Politics’ (a weekly left-radical publication),
LITERATURE ON THE POLICE: The police, the army—etc., “Social Democracy in the Army: Reform of Military Service in Germany in the Struggle Against Socialism.” Jena, 1901 (Stamhammer III). Gaston Mosch. “The Army of a Democratic State.” Paris, 1899 (in German, Stuttgart, 1900). P. Schwert. “The Officer and the Social Democrat.” Munich (R. Abt),
1899? (Stamhammer III). Löbel. “How to Counter Social Democracy in the Army?” Berlin, 1906 (2nd edition, 1907). R. Günther. “Military Affairs and Social Democracy” (“Grenz-
boten,” 1899, I). J. Charmon. “The Army and Democracy” (“Revue politique et
parlementaire,” June 1900). “The Military and Social Democracy” (“Neue Zurcher Zeitung,”
September 17–18, 1907). K. Bleibtreu. “The Army of Democracy” (“Die Zeit,” Vienna,
July 21, 1900, No. 303). Von Mikos. “Socialism and the Army.” Güns, 1907. “Revolutionary Socialism in the German Army.” 4th ed.
Paris (Eitel), 1901. “The Army and Strikes.” Locarno, 1906. “The Army During Strikes” (strike of October–November 1902) by Lieutenant 3,
(Paris, 1904) (“Socialist Library,”
No. 23–4), The notebook “ο” (“OMICRON”)
Arthur Dix. “Social Democracy, Militarism, and Colonial Policy at Socialist Congresses.” Berlin, 1908.
Henri Bailly. “Militarism and the Means of Combating It.” Lyon, 1903.
Kautsky. “Militarism and Socialism in England.” “Die
Neue Zeit,” 18, I (1899–1900).
“Schippel and Militarism.” “Die Neue Zeit,” 17, I (1898–9).
P. Luxemburg. “Social Reform or Revolution?” (Appendix: “The Police and Militarism”). Leipzig, 1899. 2nd edition, 1908.
Karsky. “International Law and Militarism.” “Die Neue Zeit,” 17, 2 (1898/9).
K. Leitner. “The Anti-Militarist (K. Liebknecht).” “Die Neue
Gesellschaft,” March 20, 1907.
“Army and Revolution.” Ibidem, 1906, No. 36.
“The Chain Dog of Capital” (Anti-Militarist League). Zurich, 1906.
“The Position of the Swiss Working Class on Military Questions: Minutes of the Party Congress.” Olten (November 11, 1906). Zurich, 1906.
“Militarism and Social Democracy.” “Die Neue Zeit,” 19, 2 (1900–1).
Schiavi. “Militarism and the Italian Socialists.” “Le Mouvement Socialiste,” 1903, No. 13.
K. Emil. “Anti-Militarism.” “Die Neue Zeit,” 25, 2 (1907). “Bourgeois Parties and Militarism.” “Die Neue Zeit,” 25, 2 (1907).
Pierre Ramus. “The Historical Development of Anti-Militarism” (“Kultur und Fortschritt,” No. 153). Leipzig, 1908.
Deimig. “Victims of Militarism.” “Die Neue Zeit,” 18, 2 (1899–1900).
E. Walter. “Military Organization and the Working Class,” Zurich, 1907.
K. Liebknecht. “Militarism and Anti-Militarism.” Leipzig, 1907,
ON THE POLICE (1912)
P. Lench. “The Police and Disarmament.” “Die Neue Zeit,” 1912 (30, 2).

?.? porridge!!
??
- Incidentally, consider this passage: “The militia system is an organization of the armed forces of a democratic state, whose primary purpose is to safeguard both the country’s external and internal security. For wars of conquest, the militia is, in any case, ill-suited—and it is precisely for this reason that we advocate for its preservation” (p. 768).
Here, too, we find a quotation from Engels, dating back to 1865 (to be transcribed)—a statement to the effect that while the working class may care little whether a great power ultimately prevails, they certainly do care whether they are required to learn military skills.
ENGELS ON THE WORKING CLASS IN ENGLAND»3
In the same article, we encounter another quotation from Engels—apparently drawn from the preface to the new edition of “The Condition of the Working Class in England” (p. XXIII of the second edition of “The Condition of the Working Class”).
Engels on the working class in the grip of monopoly
England
Engels on English socialism “As long as England retained its industrial monopoly, the English working class participated, to a certain extent, in the benefits derived from that monopoly. These benefits were distributed among workers in a highly uneven manner: the privileged minority reaped the lion’s share, yet even the broad masses occasionally received some small portion. It was for this very reason that, since the decline of Owenism, there has been no true socialism in England. With the collapse of England’s industrial monopoly, the English working class will lose its privileged position. The day will come when, without exception—including the privileged and leading minority—it will find itself at the same level as workers in other countries. And it is precisely for this reason that socialism will once again emerge in England.”*

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 23, p. 102. Ed.

NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
BURCKLI. “DEMOCRATIZING OUR MILITARY AFFAIRS”
Karl Burckli. “Democratizing Our Military Affairs.” Zurich, 1897. (Report delivered on November 15, 1896, at the Social Democratic Party Congress in Winterthur.) Right from the outset (p. 5), Burckli observes that the bourgeoisie of Switzerland “has merely given rise to a degraded form of monarchical militarism; its relentless pursuit has been to imitate foreign models and introduce a kind of ‘neo-Prussianism’ into our own midst.”
KAUTSKY, 1910 and 1912
KAUTSKY. “THE COPENHAGEN CONGRESS” “Die Neue Zeit,” 1910 (28, 2) (August 26, 1910). K. Kautsky, “The Copenhagen Congress.”
p. 776: “In the event of war between Germany and England, what is at stake is not democracy, but world domination—that is, the exploitation of the entire globe. This is not the sort of question over which social democrats ought to side with the exploiters of their own nation” (and further on—and earlier—directly opposing Heyndman).
Compare his own XXIII, 2 (on patriotism and war)*.
KAUTSKY. “DISARMAMENT, ONCE MORE” and ha-ha!!!
K. Kautsky, 1912 (30, 2), September 6, 1912, in his article “Disarmament, Once More,” p. 851: “The original premise behind the idea—and the very name—of imperialism—the consolidation of all constituent parts of the British Empire into a single, self-contained, gigantic state, an empire—this foundational principle has, in recent years, completely receded into the background and may now be regarded as virtually abandoned.”
pp. 850–851: Imperialism is not the “natural, inevitable drive” of capital toward expansion, etc.; rather, it is nothing more than a “particular method”—namely, the method of violence.

* See this volume, pp. 596–597. Ed.

KAUTSKY ON RELIGION»1
!!?? Kautsky on Religion
K. Kautsky on religion. Incidentally, on p. 353 he writes: “Our agitator, when asked about religion, must reply that this question is neither raised nor resolved at our party meetings, because we seek to treat religion as a private matter for individual believers, while at the same time demanding that the state likewise regard it as such”… [what a vulgar fellow!]
SOCIALISTS AND BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA
Attitudes Toward Black People
NB:
Socialists and Black people:
Black people and socialist- s t s !!
The Socialist Party and Black People in America: p. 382–3: “Industrial Workers of the World” 66—supporting Black people. The Socialist Party’s stance “is far from unanimous.” Just one appeal in favor of Black people, issued in 1901. Only!!!
Ibidem, p. 592: In the state of Mississippi, socialists organized Black people “into special local groups”!!
LITERATURE REFERENCES
“Die Neue Zeit,” 32, 1 (1913–14). Engels, “On Authority”; Marx, “Political Indifference” 67. Ryazanov against Brupbacher (and his defender, Mehring). NB: “The Movement for Secession from the Church”—a series of articles. “Die Neue Zeit,” 30, 2 (1912, April–September). Articles by Kautsky (and Lench) on the militia and “disarmament.” Ibidem: Grimm on the Swiss militia.

28, 2 (K. Kautsky on the 1910 Copenhagen Congress and “disarmament.” Idem Rotstein).

29, 1: Rotstein versus Heyndman, 29, 2: Quelch on the same topic,
+
64

THE “O” NOTEBOOK (“OMICRON”)
BELFORT-BAKS ON IMPERIALISM (1900)
“Die Neue Zeit,” XIX, 1 (1900–1) (November 21, 1900), p. 247.
Belfort-Baks: “A Widely Circulated and Erroneous Conclusion.”
imperialism
On Imperialism “One of the most common misconceptions encountered when discussing questions of imperialism and new colonial policies seems to have taken root in certain socialist minds…” The text goes on to examine the arguments of those who advocate for a colonial policy on the grounds that capitalism is progressive. Baks refutes these arguments…
…“Capitalist–nationalist imperialism—this is the answer that capitalism offers to international social democracy… World history now stands at a pivotal juncture: either national-capitalist imperialism, or an internationalist, socialist democracy!”…
…The modern economic system… (as it expands into new spheres of activity)… “achieves an artificial prolongation of its existence”…
Incidentally, there was also a polemic between Bernstein and Kautsky. Bernstein recalled that as early as 1896–97, Belfort-Baks had already criticized Bernstein, while Kautsky, at that time, had actually sided with Bernstein. Kautsky responded by pointing out that Baks had gone so far as to declare, quite literally, that “slavery is better than capitalism”—and that neither then nor now did he stand by Baks’s position, considering it nothing more than “sentimental utopianism.” Yet he had always opposed colonial policy.
cf. “Die Neue Zeit,” XIX, 1 (1901), p. 804: N. V. on the decay of England and on imperialism. “Die Neue Zeit,” XX, 1, p. 209: “Social Imperialism” (the Fabians), p. 243; “the imperialist–socialist era,”

ON DEBS
“Die Neue Zeit,” 1913–14, 32, 1, pp. 1007–08. In “The International Socialist Review” (March 1913), Debs advocated for the unity of the Socialist Party and the Socialist Labor Party—Debs being the founder of the Industrial Workers of the World—and for the Industrial Workers of the World to join forces against the American Federation of Labor. In fierce opposition to Debs, the “New Yorker Volkszeitung,” March 7, 1913, declared that Debs was abusing his “privilege of uttering foolishness” (sic!), claiming that the Industrial Workers of the World amounted to “nothing,” that the American Federation of Labor represented “the American labor movement,” and that it was “impossible to cultivate the labor movement of any given country in a progressive spirit by establishing so‑called revolutionary organizations with radical programs” (sic!)… (Clearly, the pattern was the same as elsewhere: the “New Yorker Volkszeitung” stood for orthodoxy, for Kautskyan positions, while Debs was a revolutionary—but without a clear theoretical framework, not a Marxist.)
ITALIAN AND POLISH WORKERS IN SWITZERLAND
J. Lorenz. “On the Question of Italians in Switzerland.”
Zurich?
“Polish Workers in Switzerland.” Zurich,
1910. Bibliographic references provided. There was a riot among Italians in Zurich from July 26–29, 1896.
Their numbers: 1860 – 9,000; 1870 – 18,000; 1900 – 117,000. Poverty was appalling. For example, in just three rooms lived 50 people! (16 pages.) Corners, makeshift bunks, lodging for 10–20 cents per night, and so on.
cf. his own work in “Neues
Leben,”
1916, 1
In 1910, there were 400 such workers. Poverty was truly abysmal.
Wages ranged from 1.50 francs to 1.60 francs per day, including room and board;
there were even instances of “beatings” (p. 11).

THE “O” NOTEBOOK (“OMICRON”)
THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN CANADA
The labor movement in Canada (which has become “bourgeoisified”)
The labor movement (bourgeoisified)
in Canada
42 individuals…

One-third of all wealth
…“The skilled segment of the working class—especially those who speak English—is completely bourgeoisified. Their views on trade unions still align entirely with those of the old, narrow-minded English trade unions. Moreover, spiritually they remain firmly under the sway of the Church. To be considered a ‘heretic’ is the greatest shame; to be ‘respectable’ is the highest honor.” But things are beginning to change: a spirit of discontent is stirring… rising costs. “Today, 42 individuals effectively hold more than one-third of the nation’s total wealth in their hands.” …The petty bourgeoisie—particularly in agriculture—are opposed to trusts. (“Die Neue Zeit,” 1913–14, 32, 1, p. 382, a summary of Gustav Meyer’s article ‘Agrarian Discontent in Canada’ from ‘The New Review,’ September 1913.)
South Africa “The leaders of the workers” are narrow-minded,
heartless, old-fashioned trade unionists
Ibidem, p. 384, concerning South Africa (“Rand”). Workers include Chinese, Kaffirs, and whites—those ruined by the Boer War. Countless atrocities were perpetrated by English capitalists, mine owners, and the government. Class struggle among all wage‑earning workers is gradually emerging, though it progresses slowly—largely because of the hesitancy, narrow-mindedness, and lack of compassion displayed by the workers’ leaders, who remain entirely beholden to the old trade union tradition (from “The International Socialist Review,” October 1913, a summary).

DIALECTICS. “THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNE OF 1871”
Lissagaray. “The History of the Commune.” 1894, p. 193 (epigraph to Chapter 17): “If the French nation consisted solely of women, what a dreadful nation it would be.” “The Daily News,” May 1871.
~-
The new Swiss military law was adopted on November 3, 1907: +329,953 – 267,605
MONOPOLIES AND TECHNOLOGY
Trusts, monopoly, and technology:
“(Monopolistic formations tend to retard rather than accelerate that technical progress which alone can ensure the development of export capacity)” (“Die Neue Zeit,” 32, no. 1, 1913–1914, p. 383, reprinted from Louis K. Frein’s article, “Concentration, Monopoly, Competition: A New Trend in National Economy,” published in The New Review (New York), September 1913),
LENCH. “SOCIAL DEMOCRACY: ITS END AND ITS SUCCESSES”
P. Lench. “Social Democracy: Its End and Its Successes,” Leipzig (Girzel), 1916 (preface dated May 22, 1916), pp. 11–12. Marx had long been familiar with the “mockery” directed at such “well-meaning notions” as disarmament, the “right of self-determination” of peoples, and the like (p. 41: “the old petty-bourgeois dogma”).
By the 1890s, social democracy had begun to “gradually cast off everything that remained sectarian within it”… the hopes for a “thousand-year kingdom,” and the like, had faded away, etc.—
All evaluations were made from an “agitator’s” standpoint (17)…
the “period of enthusiasm” in German social democracy… and even as early as 1889, with the decision to celebrate May 1st.

* In the manuscript, the word “self-determination” is linked by an arrow to a later marginal note: “(p. 41; ‘the old petty-bourgeois dogma’).” Ed.

NOTEBOOK “O” (“OMICRON”)
The rise of imperialism—toward the end of the nineteenth century—also marked the decline of England, France, and Germany (26–27)…
The growth of revisionism: both tendencies—revisionism and radicalism—were necessary and beneficial (31–5)…
Marx and Engels were not “petty-bourgeoisly sentimental”: “They knew full well that in war, one seldom fires a decisive shot” (39)…

62–68. One ought to have voted against the loans on August 4 (though in practice things would have turned out much the same), but then, on December 2, 1914, we voted in favor—because the French and the British had already betrayed international solidarity. [What a rogue!!] This would have lessened international hatred toward the Germans and, in turn, strengthened their national cause: 69–70.
Well, what a rogue indeed!!!
“The Collapse of the International” (Chapter 3) lay in the fact that the French and the British had sided with war (sic!!).
Of course, the Third International would come into being—only it would be “less utopian” (112) and more conscious of its own “economic foundations”…
“The more mature a given proletariat was, the more active it proved to be in wartime” (IZ)—this assertion of Renner’s is “incorrect,” for it is not “maturity” that determined the behavior of the working classes in England and France, but rather the struggle for world hegemony against Germany.
English workers were defending their own (monopolistic) privileged position and their own exclusive rights (114–15)…
The aristocratic elite (115) of the English proletariat.
To speak of international solidarity among the working class is “too early” (117), so long as there remain nations that exploit others, so long as there is no “balance” among the great powers (116)…
and the “catalogue of pious wishes” (the right to self-determination—petty-bourgeois in nature, etc., opposition to annexations, etc.) remains abstract, failing to take into account the concrete task at hand—the task of breaking the “class rule” (114) of England, its monopoly (122), its “exclusive position” (120)…

—this is the “revolution” (123 and the preface); this, then, is what the present war truly is! “The rise of this (proletarian) class may indeed occur amid the thunder of a revolutionary world war, yet without the lightning of a revolutionary civil war”… (124) (emphasis added by the author). “The overthrow of English world hegemony” equals revolution.
Submarines and Zeppelins (125)… “the beginning of the end” for England’s dominant position (126) (their role would grow even more pronounced after the war).
131 — Over the last three to four decades of the nineteenth century, England added fifteen million square kilometers to its colonial empire.
Another fifteen million *
Compare my figures:
England + France + Russia = a “syndicate for the partition of the world” (132 and elsewhere), with the aim of “weltpolitisch aushungern” Germany ** (132). 175: Nearly half of England’s working class was deprived of the right to vote. “The principle of organization”—that is the essence of Prussian history. From this arose Germany’s strength. It stood closest to the “social revolution” (184); it embodied the “revolutionary principle,” while England represented the “reactionary.” 186: “A symbolic visit to the Berlin trade union headquarters”… (the government recognized the role of trade unions). (Praise be to the leaders of the trade unions) (185–6.) 188—It was I who first termed this “military socialism,” and that term subsequently acquired “international standing.” 195: The new expenditures—four billion annually—after the war would inevitably lead to socialization and the emergence of monopolies. 198: “The democratization of army organization”—from the same source… = “the arming of the people” (204) = the very essence of our social-democratic program.

* See this volume, p. 229. Ed.
* o* An untranslatable expression. Literally: “to starve Germany in matters of world politics,” that is, to wear Germany down through exhaustion, depriving it of the ability to pursue a global political agenda. Ed.

The notebook “ο” (“OMICRON”)
209–210 – The minority within the German party is, from a historical standpoint, thoroughly reactionary—and thus its fate is sealed: “impossibilism and sectarian chatter.”
From now on, the Social Democratic Party will be less narrow in scope; even “intellectuals” and even officers will return to its ranks (212).
The state recognizes its necessity and will admit Social Democrats into the officer corps (!!).
Social democracy, having “raised” the workers, has also raised them nationally (215, at the end) (“national uplift”).
(= “Social democracy is the most national of all parties”) (216).
Not dialectics, but sophistry—everywhere one encounters the play on words “dialectics,” understood in the most archaic sense. Not a trace of comprehensive insight. Only one thing is extracted, in a sophistical manner: the claim that English world domination must be undermined.
PERREN DE BUSSAC. “ON THE COLONIAL ARMY” AND “A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORK”
Perren de Bussac. “On the Colonial Army.” Dissertation. Paris, 1901. Nil. A student’s work. He quotes de Lanessan: “The Principles of Colonization”—the role of the soldier in the colonial army as colonist, agriculturist, landowner, etc. ((NB: the prospect of transforming the soldier in the colonial army into a landed proprietor in the colony—what a vision!!))
“Bibliography of Work.” 1913. Boston, 1914: 150 pages of an exceptionally detailed and splendid bibliography.
HEMNITZKY’S “PEOPLE’S VOICE” “PARTY TREASON IS STATE TREASON”
NB:
valuable admissions “Volksstimme” (Hemnitz), No. 156 (I Supplement), July 8, 1916,
article: “Party Treason Is State Treason.”

“More” “For several months now, numerous anonymous leaflets have been circulating, hurling at the elected and time‑tested leaders of the party and the trade unions accusations—repeated in every possible tone, down to the most vulgar—accusations that, at the moment of the great crisis in world history, whose culminating point for party politics was undoubtedly August 4, 1914, these very leaders sold out and betrayed the proletariat. At first, when people read such claims, they laughed. But as the horrors of war began to weigh ever more heavily upon them, as the number of casualties mounted, as food shortages grew ever more acute, and as hopes for peace dwindled—thanks to the enemy’s relentless pursuit of its destructive plans—more and more people found themselves ready to believe this vile slander.”
The “dog-like” tone is a clear allusion to a leaflet that suggested social-imperialists ought to be “whipped with a dog’s leash!”
“For what reason would Scheidemann, David, Landsberg betray the proletariat? For what price? To this day, we still do not know.”… Not for positions within the party: “the rejection of credits is not life‑threatening”… And even more unclear is what, exactly, constitutes betrayal—since, according to them, it is merely their conviction, their assessment of the facts… “To that extent, the charge of treason is devoid of any real meaning.”
“But for the party itself, it is extremely dangerous. One may doubt—and indeed debate—the views held by the mass of party members on this matter. Yet there is no room for doubt: even today, at least three-quarters of those whom the proletariat, in times of calm and peace, had chosen as leaders on the basis of their distinguished service, still regard the vote in favor of the credits as both correct and necessary. It follows that over 90…

THE NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
Of the 110 Social Democratic deputies in the Reichstag, some allegedly committed treason on August 4—and more than three-quarters of the leaders and party officials are still guilty of it today. If this were true, the wisest course would be to let the party bring about its own demise, to lay it in the grave as quickly as possible, and to bury it deep in the earth. For if, after fifty years of organizational work, the proletariat were to find that its leaders were almost universally traitors, that would be a crushing, irrefutable proof that politically, the proletariat is incapable of anything and will always be deceived. What other conclusion could possibly be drawn? One might drive all the old leaders out and elect a new generation to take their place—but there would be no guarantee that, when the next great crisis struck, the new leaders would not, in turn, commit treason… For many of the staunch radicals who stood behind August 4—Pfannkuch, Ebert, and others—“What, then, could possibly serve as a guarantee for the workers that, if these men are traitors, then each of their successors will likewise not end up betraying the cause?”
Now, anonymous leaflets have gone so far as to issue a direct call for a strike in the military-industrial complex. This amounts to state treason.
“For there is no need to even speak of the fact that this idea of a mass strike will yield absolutely no practical results—not among the fanatically nationalist French, nor among the arrogant British…”
compare
March in “Izvestia” and elsewhere.
These are clearly not Social Democrats—they are either madmen or Anglo-Russian provocateurs… It is so “dishonorable and unpatriotic” that we can never have anything in common with such people, and so forth.

«LEIPZIG PEOPLE’S GAZETTE» «Leipziger Volkszeitung», July 10, 1916.
PARTY AFFAIRS
“Treason to the Party Is Treason to the State.”
Thus headlines the Chemnitz-based “Volksstimme” in an article that sharply denounces the charge of treason against the Party—“a charge hurled at elected and time‑tested leaders of the Party and the trade unions in countless anonymous leaflets, endlessly recycled in every possible tone, down to the most vulgar and seditious.”
This defense is followed by an attack. The second part of the article speaks of “state treason.” It reads:
“In the meantime, anonymous leaflet literature has given rise to open state treason. Of course, we are not speaking of Karl Liebknecht, whom a military court, on the basis of certain legal abstractions, seeks to punish for attempting military treason—though his conduct, in any case, has nothing whatsoever to do with what the people understand by ‘state treason’—but rather of that kind of state treason from which one can never truly escape. According to the ‘Hamburger Echo,’ a leaflet is now circulating among workers, disseminated through unknown channels, calling for a general strike in the military-industrial complex*. Under the slogan ‘Down with War!’ the leaflet calls for a ‘new mode of action’ and, through quite unambiguous examples, makes clear what is meant by a mass strike. Thus, at precisely the moment when enemies on the front lines are launching furious offensives, raining torrents of steel upon German soldiers, they seek to deprive German artillery of its ammunition: let the German infantry, deprived of its vital support, perish under enemy fire; let the German proletarians conscripted into the army meet their fate. For it goes without saying that this idea of a mass strike will have absolutely no practical effect—not even the slightest—upon the fanatically nationalist French or the arrogant British.
Therefore, this propaganda is nothing less than state treason—a betrayal of our comrades in the class who serve in the armed forces—and we would like to know what our comrades there will say about such reckless folly.

* Italics here and below are the author’s own. Ed.
We are firmly convinced that the German working class will give those who come to it with such claims the proper response. As already noted, the leaflets are anonymous; whether they originate with madmen or with Anglo-Russian provocateurs, we do not know. They certainly cannot come from the Social Democrats. Anyone who would even passively lend support to such propaganda would, once and for all, cease to exist for German social democracy. For this propaganda is both dishonest and unpatriotic, and with a person who has fallen so low, we can, of course, have nothing—absolutely nothing—in common.

NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
But even the mere possibility of such a phenomenon shows where this anonymous leaflet literature can lead. It began with the most outrageous insults, for which their authors dared not take responsibility before their Party comrades—and now it has descended to this sort of provocative activity. First came cries of treason against the Party; now comes open state treason! The time has come, then, to put an end to it once and for all. Whoever wishes to say something in these days must have the courage to say it under their own responsibility. Or perhaps these people are too cowardly to risk prosecution at a time when hundreds of thousands are sacrificing their lives for the cause? Besides, anonymity will not save the distributors of anonymous leaflets anyway; if they are caught, they will, of course, be subjected to the severest penalties.
The dangers posed by this anonymous propaganda have now become abundantly clear. It allows no distinction between honest error and base treachery against the fatherland—treachery that may well be financed by foreign funds. We therefore call upon our Party comrades to finally put an end to these anonymous leaflets. They serve as a cover for those who seek to plunge the German people—and above all the German proletariat—into misfortune. Be on your guard against the provocateurs!
We deem it necessary to reproduce these reflections in order to show our readers what “Hamburger Echo” and Chemnitz’s “Volksstimme” regard as the task of the day. If these two newspapers were to criticize the leaflet distributors on the merits, that would be their legitimate right—but when they loudly proclaim that this propaganda constitutes state treason, they are making a denunciation worthy of being fully appraised by the working class.
In fact, however, this accusation is utterly unfounded, for the leaflets in question, at least as far as we know them, present the strike only as a means of articulating the working class’s demands on pressing issues of the day in a clear and forthright manner. There is not the slightest mention in them of the very goal that “Hamburger Echo” and Chemnitz’s “Volksstimme” claim to see in them.
MARX ON THE WAR FOR FRANCE’S FREEDOM (I. 1871), ON IRELAND, ON THE IMPENDING WAR (in 1874)
Marx on the War of 1870:
In the First Address of the International (July 23, 1870), Marx quotes the resolution passed by delegates representing 50,000 workers in Chemnitz, which declared the war to be “exclusively dynastic” (p. 18, 3rd edition of “The Civil War”).
[Ibidem, pp. 17–18: For the Germans, the war was defensive.]
In the Second Address (September 9, 1870), it is stated that “the defensive war has ended… with the proclamation of the republic”...

(p. 19), stating that “the French working class, in exceedingly difficult circumstances”… “must not give way to the national memories of 1792”… “any attempt to overthrow the new government would be an act of desperate folly”… “it must calmly and resolutely harness republican liberties to organize its own class” 70 (p. 25). Letter dated December 13, 1870: “Whatever the outcome of the war may be, it has taught the French proletariat how to wield arms” [notebook: “Marxism on the State,” p. 2, margin 71].
Article in The Daily News, January 16, 1871: “France is fighting both for its own national independence and for the freedom of Germany and of Europe” 72.
Letter dated April 12, 1871: expressions of jubilation over the “historic initiative of the Parisian workers,” etc. (notebook: “Marxism on the State,” p. 12) 73; “The Civil War in France”: May 30, 1871.
In January 1871, France was fighting both for its own national independence and for the freedom of Germany and of Europe…
In a letter to Kugelmann dated February 14, 1871 (“Die Neue Zeit,” XX, 2, p. 608), Marx cited a letter he had published in The Daily News on January 16, 1871, which concluded as follows: “France is now fighting not only for its own national independence, but also for the freedom of Germany and of Europe—and, fortunately, its cause can by no means be regarded as hopeless” 74. There, in a letter dated March 28, 1870, Marx voiced his complaints against Bakunin and reproduced the text of the General Council’s resolution of January 1, 1870, which, among other things, set forth the General Council’s position on the Irish question:
…“The General Council’s resolutions on Irish amnesty serve merely as a prelude to other resolutions that will state that, setting aside considerations of international justice, the prerequisite for the emancipation of the English working class is the transformation of the existing coercive union—that is, the subjugation of Ireland—into an equal and free federation, or, if this

NOTEBOOK “O” (“OMICRON”)
is not feasible, then into complete separation, should that prove necessary” 75 (p. 478).
There, p. 800: letter dated May 18, 1874 76: |] (1874)
…“Despite all diplomatic maneuvers, a new war—whether a little earlier or a little later—is inevitable, and before its conclusion it is unlikely that any significant popular movement will emerge anywhere, or at most such movements will remain local and of minor importance.”
ULBRIHT. NATIONALITIES AND IMPERIALISM
Edmund Ulbricht. “World Power and the National State.” (Political History, 1500–1815.) Edited and published by Gustav Rosenhagen. Leipzig, 1910. (p. 668.)
The text repeatedly refers to “imperialist schemes,” etc.
Only 2½ pages—pages 666–668—are devoted to the era following 1815: “Results and Prospects.”
“The wars of liberation also brought with them the culmination of the world-historical struggle for maritime and commercial supremacy: the result was England’s dominance of the seas.
But the age of revolution and the wars of liberation also marked the beginning of a new phase of development. The Revolution shattered the old feudal order in France, thereby giving impetus to the transformation of social order and the state; and it was only through the agency of their peoples that the other European states were ultimately able to defend themselves against the forces unleashed by the French Revolution. Of all the ideas born of the Revolution, none proved more potent in the early years than the national idea. Under the yoke of harsh foreign domination and in the heroic struggle against it, other European peoples too rose to a consciousness of the intrinsic connection between state and nation. Whereas in the 18th century it had been the great powers that rose up to safeguard Europe’s independence and its balance against the ever‑growing might of a single state, now it was the very peoples themselves who were rejuvenated and refreshed by the influx of new forces.”

from the depths. The national idea became the core and the ultimate goal of nearly all wars in the 19th century.
This heightened sense of collective strength among the peoples could, of course, not fail to make itself felt within their own states. Masses began to demand participation in the political life of the nation.
As a result of the French Revolution, Napoleon’s global hegemony, and the liberation wars, national consciousness and the aspiration for political freedom grew into invincible forces in modern history. Nationalist tendencies intersected with the liberal and democratic ideals rooted in the Age of Enlightenment, merging with them into the theory of popular sovereignty—according to which statehood must rest upon an indivisible nation, and in such a way that supreme will and supreme authority belong to the nation alone, and that the right of the head of state must be derived solely from the rights of the nation itself” (667).
This theory posed a threat both to monarchies and to their non-native populations: the restoration movements stood in direct opposition to these ideas…
But the 19th century as a whole was a movement toward political freedom and national self-determination.
“Yet the commercial and political struggle—which, ever since the emergence of monetary economies and the great voyages of discovery, had increasingly come to define the history of nations—did not recede into the background in the 19th century. At first, to be sure, England enjoyed undisputed commercial supremacy; and, leveraging this power through the doctrine of free trade, it transcended the era of economic conflict brought about by mercantilism. Through this doctrine—like political liberalism, born in the Age of Enlightenment—England conquered the world, triumphantly realizing the emancipation of trade and intercourse in the lives of nations. Economically weaker states submitted to this system for a time; even the youngest of Europe’s great national powers—Italy and Germany—could not remain deaf to this new doctrine.
But then the United States of America, having overcome a severe internal crisis, emerged as a new and formidable competitor on the commercial and political stage. A new era of economic struggle was beginning—a new era, NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
marked by a return to policies aimed at protecting national labor through protective tariffs and trade agreements, yet without reviving the harsh, coercive policies characteristic of old mercantilism. Following the United States down this path came the Third French Republic, and from 1880 onward, the newly established German Empire. After the completion of the struggle for liberal and national state order, after the conclusion of internal constitutional development, the rising powers of the people sought to carve out the broadest possible space for themselves—space in which to consolidate their newfound strength. In the colonial competition, the great powers strove to acquire territories where they could sell their goods, to secure sources from which they could obtain the raw materials they needed; through relentless diplomatic efforts, they sought to open up new markets for their working peoples. Corresponding to these expansionist impulses, on the other hand, was a growing drive toward economic autarky. England sought to forge, together with its colonial possessions, a single, closed trading entity—the Great Britain. America, meanwhile, aspired to achieve economic self-sufficiency, seeking to become independent from the Old World in matters of trade and industry. It was only now that, in the truest sense of the word, the competition among nations for global dominance and world trade truly began. This competition gave rise to several world powers, existing side by side, whose policies—so long as they wished to defend themselves—must inevitably embrace imperialism.

“New Imperialism” “Signs”
Ha-ha!!
“Old
Imperialism is dead”
The term “new imperialism” did not derive its name from the Roman Empire, nor from the empires of the Middle Ages or the Papacy; for now, the question was no longer one of world domination by any single, isolated power. Colonial expansion, participation in world trade, the protection of overseas interests through powerful navies—these were the hallmarks borrowed from the British Empire that came to define the modern world powers. Such powers could quite well coexist alongside one another, and in peaceful competition among nations, contribute to the progress of humanity” (667–668). (End of book.)
N. V. Old and New Imperialism:
From the Introduction, p. XXIII:
“In seclusion on the island of Saint Helena lay buried the old imperialist; with Bonaparte died his last representative—and even this man, celebrated for his heroic deeds, was still shrouded in the romantic aura of former imperial splendor. A new chapter in history was beginning; at its very foundation lay the national idea, which proved more powerful than the reactionary ambitions of rulers and statesmen in the decades immediately following Napoleon’s fall. What had been initiated in the 16th century was brought to fruition in the 19th century, when the two nations of Central Europe—Italy and Germany—long subjected for centuries to the exploitation of foreign powers, finally achieved national unification. But on such a national basis, it creates— NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
N V:
“New
World
Politics”
NB
“The New
Imperialism”
The possibility of a new world politics has emerged. The term “imperialism” is once again coming to life, imbued with fresh meaning. England—never defeated by Napoleon—pioneered this development as early as the 18th century, laying the foundations for a new global empire beyond Europe, not through conscious design but rather through the unconscious yet inevitable logic of acquiring overseas colonies and maintaining a powerful naval fleet. The other great powers of the world have since followed suit: economic necessity has driven nations across the globe into ever‑intensifying economic competition.
The entire work is divided into three sections.
Section I: The End of the Medieval World Empire and the Emergence of National States in the Age of Reformation and Counter‑Reformation, 1500–1648.
Section II: The Formation of the Five Great European Powers in the Era of Monarchical Absolutism.
Section III: The Rise and Fall of the New World Power, France, and the Struggle of Nations for National Independence, 1789–1815.
My addition: (the “epochs” of history)
Ergo, 1500–1789 = 289 years
1789–1871 = 82 years
1871–1914 = 43 years
Key Moments in Section I:
The emergence of the “Spanish national state” (pp. 24ff.) and, subsequently, the “establishment of the Spanish Habsburg World Empire” (pp. 51ff.).
Charles V’s struggle for global hegemony (the German Reformation, 1517–1555), The rise of national royal power in Denmark and Sweden (pp. 148ff.)… “Sweden’s Subjugation of Estonia,” etc.
The development of Poland into a great power (pp. 163ff.)… the Polish–Swedish alliance… Poland and the struggle for Russia.
The beginning of the struggle against Spain. The Dutch “War of Liberation” and the “secession of the Netherlands from Spain.” The Armada of 1588. The outcome of this struggle: “The Ascendancy of France, England, and the Netherlands. The Decline of Spain” (pp. 233ff.).

The Thirty Years’ War, spanning the period 1616–1659: “The Spanish Habsburg–Catholic World Politics in Struggle Against German Protestantism, Against Denmark and Sweden, Against France and England” (pp. 273ff.).
(Including the alliance between England, the Netherlands, and Denmark against Austria.
The Swedes before Vienna. Sweden in war with France, etc.)
The English Revolution of the 17th century.
Section II:
“The Completion of the French National State” (Richelieu) and “France’s Achieving a Dominant Position in Europe.” 1661–1685.
The Restoration of European Balance (the War of Spanish Succession); the rise of England, Austria, Russia, and Prussia.
Russia in its struggle against Sweden (and against Poland)…
“Sweden in War with Denmark, Poland, Brandenburg, Austria, and the Netherlands” (1655–1660).
Austria in its struggle against Turkey (17th century).
The Struggle of the Great Powers (1740–1789).
The Seven Years’ War (1758–1762) (“the Colonial War” between England and France).
The War of American Independence (in alliance with France, Spain, and the Netherlands).
“The Imperialist Plans of Joseph II and Catherine II. The End of Poland.”
Section III:
Wars Against the French Revolution.

The First Coalition War (1792–1797)
The Second Coalition War (1799–1801/02)
The Anglo–French War (1793–1799).

NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
Napoleon’s War with Prussia and the “Napoleonic Plans for World Domination.” (The collapse came in 1812.) “The Liberation Wars of 1813–1815.”
Poland before 1660 (according to the historical atlas): Under the Union of Lublin in 1569, Poland possessed a Baltic coastline stretching from Danzig to Courland and Livonia—including Riga (which, following the Peace of Oliva in 1660, was ceded to Sweden)—as well as Little Russia with Kyiv, Poltava, and Chernihiv, Podolia, Volhynia, and more; Belarus, including Smolensk.
/According to the Treaty of Andrusovo in 1667, the Partition of Poland: 1
Russia received Smolensk, Kyiv, –{ The First in 1772
\Chernihiv, Poltava, and so on / ( The Third in 1795 J
South America is now entirely free, save for three Guianas:
/Spanish, Portuguese, British (1781)
\and Dutch in the 16th–17th centuries / Dutch (1667)
French (1674)
North America in 1783. The independence of 13 states from England. Louisiana (a series of Spanish territories, 1763
states today): French in 1802, British in 1763, the Mississippi Basin – S. States in 1803, S. States in 1783.
cippi
Mexico and Central America: Spanish (Mexico, a republic since 1810)
Turkey: The Ottoman Empire under Mehmed IV (1648–1687), extending nearly to Vienna—Austria, Romania, Crimea, the Caucasus,
the entire Balkan Peninsula, and beyond.
Serbia (Hungarian since 1718 (Turkish since 1739 {kingdom since 1817
Sweden, up until (before) 1719 (from the mid‑17th century onward), also held Finland and Ingermanland (St. Petersburg)

(Norway since 1815, Estonia under Swedish rule) Livonia
part of Germany (Western Pomerania [Stettin] + Bremen)
In 1763, Canada was ceded by France to England.
The independence of the 13 states was proclaimed on July 4, 1776
The United States. The War of Independence, 1775–1783. In 1778, a treaty of friendship was concluded with France; in 1779, a treaty of friendship was concluded with Spain. American–French forces \ The end of the war: On September 3, 1781, they defeated the British; in 1783: the Treaty of Versailles. Spain, a military ally of America, regained Florida under this peace settlement. Florida would only be united with the United States of America in 1819.
Portugal was Spanish from 1580 to 1640.
The Netherlands: separated from Spain in 1581.
1796: Belgium passed to France. The Netherlands became the Batavian Republic, 1814–1831. Belgium passed to the Netherlands.
“Epochs” of Modern History
NB:
historical “Epochs” of modern history
On the question of historical epochs in modern history, see also P. Gerre’s “Source Studies in World History,” Leipzig, 1910, where, alongside a standard division into epochs and references to relevant literature, the following “epochs” are cited, among others: “The Epoch of the Medieval Idea of World Domination” (circa 800–circa 1250). — “The Epoch of the Emergence of National States” (circa 1250–circa 1500)... “The Epoch of the Formation and Development of National Constitutional States” (circa 1789–D°

THE “O” NOTEBOOK (“OMICRON”)
c. 1870)... “The Era of World States and World Economies” (“c. 1870 – until c. 1910”).
THE “STRUGGLE” JOURNAL
ADLER AND RENNER
“Der Kampf,” 1916, No. 2. In his article “The Objectives of War” (against annexations), Fr. Adler quotes from the “Süddeutsche Monatshefte” their declaration no. 77:
“The states that currently constitute the world are, in essence, states founded upon force. Yet their strength lies in land, in people, and in property”... “They [the soldiers] are waiting for ‘real guarantees’: they are waiting for land, for people, and for property”...
and, by way of comparison, Article VI of the Constitution of 1791:
“The French Nation renounces any war undertaken with the aim of conquest and shall never employ its forces against the liberty of any people”...
and the Constitution of 1848: “The French Republic respects the nationalities of other peoples just as it expects to be respected in its own national identity. It shall not undertake any war with the aim of conquest and shall never employ its forces against the liberty of any people”...
My addition:
For texts of the French Constitutions of 1791, 1793, and beyond, see F. Élie’s “Constitutions of France.”
Ibidem, No. 1: In his article “Reality or a Delusional Idea?”, K. Renner, among other things on p. 17, refers to Trotsky as “Gilferding’s closest friend.”

Typical!!
Among his arguments in favor of an alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary: “If there were only two major economic systems in the world, it would be far easier for us Social Democrats to dismantle the last great barrier—far easier than it is now, when we find ourselves trapped in a tangled labyrinth and, precisely because of this, struggle so mightily to find our way. Let the entire world calmly embark upon the path of union—so much the better for us, the closer we will come to our ultimate goal” (pp. 19–20).
NB: Compare Central Europe and the United States of Europe
(p. 16: “The movement for the so‑called Central Europe is still unfolding entirely on bourgeois ground—and I am speaking first and foremost of that ground.”)
We and They:

1) Renner, “Sozialistische Monatshefte,” “Die Glocke,” and Co. = lackeys of the imperialist bourgeoisie
2) Kautsky, Hilferding, and Co. (+ their closest friend = Trotsky) = persuaders of the imperialist bourgeoisie
advisers to the imperialist bourgeoisie, reformers of its 78
3) The Left = revolutionary fighters opposed to it.
HILFERDING (KAUTSKYAN PERSPECTIVES)
“Der Kampf,” 1916, No. 2, pp. 59–60.
aggressive practices of financial capital
Hilferding advances the familiar argument of Kautsky, namely that the interconnections of the global economy compel us not to isolate ourselves—that in the colonies, England’s imports and exports (1899–1913) grew more rapidly not with England itself (p. 57): “Germany did not spend vast sums acquiring colonies and administering them; but as soon as its capitalist development enabled it to do so, it derived from their productive capacity the same benefits as England. To claim that colonies should be monopolized for

THE “O” NOTEBOOK (“OMICRON”)
England is out of the question”... (just as the claim about England is plainly incorrect: railways, concessions, capital outflows. Germany surpassed England despite the latter’s colonies. Without colonies, England might have fallen even further behind. That is one thing. And secondly, in England, financial capital has long since “rested upon its laurels.” Now German capital too seeks to “rest”).
“The hallmark of imperialist policy lies in the fact that
it seeks to resolve questions of economic competition by means of state violence—in the interests of
the ruling stratum of capitalists within each state.
Through protective tariffs, it ensures that the domestic market is exploited
by domestic cartels; through its colonial policy and its policy of spheres of influence, it strives to secure
monopolistic control over specific segments of the world market for its own capitalists,
and by means of economic and political pressure, it reduces small nations
to spheres of exploitation for its own capital. In doing so, it enters into ever‑intensifying conflict with the imperialist policies of other states.
Hence the drive to strengthen state power, the increasingly fierce
race for naval and land armaments. It is precisely this policy that led to
catastrophe. And today, peoples stand before an alternative: will they (!!!) continue this policy after the war, or will they seek to put an end to it? Will they perpetuate the inseparable trio of protective tariffs, colonial policy, and arms policy—or will they break with great‑power politics?” (pp. 59–60).

First, we must seize power ourselves—rather than vainly talking about “power.”
“The issue is not merely the regulation of commercial relations; it is the great-power politics that seeks to secure a monopolistic position for its own capital at the expense of others—a policy from which military danger has arisen. And should we, simply because things were this way before the war, now resign ourselves to it, instead of resisting, by every available means, the continuation of this policy on an even more advanced scale? On the contrary, we believe that precisely because we have seen where the monopolistic, great-power politics of states leads, we must strive with all our might to combat its continuation and expansion.” (61)
ENGELS AND MARX ON THE ENGLISH WORKING CLASS
Engels, “The Condition of the Working Class in England,” 2nd edition, 1892, p. 79.
p. XX: “The Aristocracy within the Working Class”—the “privileged minority of workers,” as opposed to the “broad mass of workers” (from Article 1, Section III, 1885).
The competition from other nations shattered England’s “industrial monopoly”—the “small, privileged, protected minority” (XXII) within the working class—which alone had enjoyed “long-term benefits” between 1848 and 1868, while the “broad mass, at best, reaped only brief improvements in their condition.”* (See p. 14** of this notebook.) p. XXIV: the rise of “new unionism”—the unions of unskilled workers:

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 23, p. 102. Ed.
** See the present volume, p. 568. Ed.

NOTEBOOK “O” (“OMICRON”)
“These new unionists” possess “one immeasurable advantage: their psyche remains a pristine, untainted soil—completely free from those ‘respectable’ bourgeois prejudices that so often confuse the minds of even the most well‑trained ‘old unionists.’”*
And regarding the elections of 1892:
“Of the former so‑called worker representatives—those individuals whom people tolerated simply because they were willing to drown their status as members of the working class in the ocean of their own liberalism—Henry Broadhurst, the most prominent figure of old unionism, suffered a resounding defeat when he declared himself opposed to the eight‑hour workday.”**
After 1847: “For these two reasons [1) the decline of Chartism; 2) the flourishing of industry], the English working class, in political terms, became a mere appendage of the ‘Great Liberal Party’—a party led by factory owners.” (XVII)
Correspondence with Zorge.
Marx on the leaders of the English working class:
F. Engels to Zorge (September 21, 1872): “…Hales staged a major scandal in the Federal Council here, securing a formal rebuke for Marx on the grounds that he had claimed the English worker leaders were bought off—but one English section and one Irish section here already voiced their protest, affirming the correctness of Marx’s position…” 80
Engels to Zorge, October 5, 1872: “Here, Hales has launched a fierce, slanderous campaign against Marx and me—and yet this very campaign is already beginning to turn against him… The pretext was Marx’s assertion that the English worker leaders were corrupt.”… 81
Marx to Zorge, April 4, 1874, 82: … “As for the urban workers” in England, “one can only regret that the entire gang of leaders did not make it into Parliament. That would have been the surest path to liberation from this rabble…” ***

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 23, p. 102. Ed.
** Ibid. Ed.
*** Ibid., p. 101. Ed.

cf. pp. 40–41*—even more emphatically see the continuation on p. 36**:
K. Marx to Kugelmann, May 18, 1874: “In England today, only the rural workers’ movement is making progress; industrial workers must first rid themselves of their current leaders. When I exposed these gentlemen at the Hague Congress, I knew full well that I would incur unpopularity, slander, and the like. But I have always remained indifferent to such consequences. In some quarters, people are beginning to realize that with these attacks, I was merely fulfilling my duty.” 83. (“Die Neue Zeit,” XX, 2, 1901–1902, p. 800.)
(The Hague Congress, Jekk. “The International,” p. 191:
September 1872) At The Hague, Marx said: “If anyone in England is not recognized as a worker leader, then that is only to his credit—because every ‘recognized worker leader’ in London is funded by Gladstone, Morley, Dilke, and Co.…”
cf. Jekk’s discussion of the same topic in “Die Neue Zeit,” XXIII, 2, p. 28.
KAUTSKY. “PATRIOTISM, WAR, AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY”
K. Kautsky, “Patriotism, War, and Social Democracy” (“Die Neue Zeit,” XXIII, 2; 1905). A labor strike is “heroic folly” (370), just like the “attempts” of bourgeois pacifists to eliminate wars through arbitration tribunals. Both forms of folly “stem from the error of viewing war as an isolated phenomenon.”

* See the present volume, pp. 604–605. Ed.
** Excerpts from Engels’s correspondence with Zorge are recorded on pages 36 and 37 of the notebook (see the present volume, p. 600). Ed.

The notebook “ο” (“OMICRON”)
But war threatens catastrophe: “However, defeat in a reckless war is a catastrophe that leads to the deepest possible collapse” (371).
The proletariat “is still scarcely strong enough anywhere to render war impossible through revolution prior to the outbreak of war—and a military strike is, after all, a form of revolution.” “Yet in every capitalist state, it has already grown powerful enough that any prolonged, costly, and ultimately futile war must serve as the starting point for a revolution that will establish proletarian rule” (371).
BAUER. “THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY”
On Bauer’s “The National Question and Social Democracy.” St. Petersburg, 1909.
From §30: “Socialism and the Principle of Nationality.”
p. 534: …“No socialist community will ever be able to forcibly incorporate entire nations into its own ranks. Imagine masses of people who possess the full riches of national culture, who participate fully and actively in legislation and governance, and who are moreover armed—would it even be conceivable to subjugate such nations by force to the dominion of a foreign social order? All state power rests upon the force of arms. The modern national army, thanks to its sophisticated mechanisms, remains but a tool in the hands of a particular individual, a family, a class—just as the knightly and mercenary armies of past ages once were. But the army of a democratic community within a socialist society is nothing other than an armed people, since it consists of highly cultured individuals who work freely in communal workshops and take full part in every sphere of public life. Under such conditions, the very possibility of extranational domination vanishes entirely” (534).

The United States of Europe is “not a vain dream,” but rather “the inevitable end of the path upon which nations have long since embarked” (542).
If socialist Germany were to wish to send some of its workers to Ukraine, it would not do so “without first guaranteeing them their cultural autonomy” (543)… (this concludes §30).
In §29: “Imperialism and the Principle of Nationality” (pp. 512–529 of the Russian translation), the author quotes Schulze-Gevernitz on British imperialism, citing the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and Italy’s ambitions to seize Albania: “They will talk of Trieste and Triest, yet in their hearts they will be thinking of Albania” (519). “In this way, the masses of the Italian nation will be led to perceive an imperialist war waged with conquest in mind as a war for national liberation” (519)…
Baghdad, Russia in Persia, and the like—“these are the seeds and elements of those future conflicts” (518)…
Likewise, “British imperialism presents to the voting masses the enticing vision of a 400-million-strong empire under the sway of a single British nation, while at the same time it dreams of cartel profits for iron magnates and speculative gains on the London Stock Exchange”… “One day, Russian imperialism will likely proclaim the freedom and unity of Poland and Ukraine—only to open up new markets for St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Łódź manufacturers”… “And just as German imperialism must inevitably succeed the Greater German idea of 1848, it must inscribe upon its banner the realization of a unified, great German fatherland—when it decides to sacrifice the lives of German workers and peasants in the service of capital interests along the Tigris and Euphrates” (522–523)… “The dissolution of Austria within the framework of capitalist society can only be the work of imperialism” (528)… “The breakup of Austria presupposes the triumph of imperialism in Germany, Russia, and Italy. But the victory of imperialism, in turn, requires the defeat of the working class in those very countries” (527). Austrian workers must place their hopes not in the victory of imperialism…

The notebook “ο” (“OMICRON”)
GRUMBACH. “THE ERROR OF ZIMMERWALD-KINTEL”
S. Grumbach. “The Error of Zimmerwald-Kintal.” Bern, 1916 (p. 95) (the vulgarities of the social-chauvinist). p. 24: …“Although he (Kautsky) did not fully grasp the situation on August 4, 1914, he nonetheless remains for us (!!!) and for socialists of all countries one of the leading theoreticians of the International”…
p. 26 …“The general leveling that Zimmerwald and Kintal preach…”
– p. 40 – In response to Valliant’s proposal, Keir Hardie’s German Social Democrats failed to reply, and in Chemnitz (1913), despite their promise, they did not even discuss it—for the Vienna Congress of 1914!!! (Nonsense! Surely Legien and Co. could have carried out this task!!). (Compare this with Huysmans’ letter to the Swiss Party—idem.)
The French minority also advocated for the defense of the fatherland!! (-54-). [Grimm, in August and November 1914, was said to have been in favor of defending the fatherland—68.] p. 77: Lenin spoke in favor of the Moroccan War, etc.
(p. 4 of the German pamphlet *). “Here, madness becomes a method!” Morocco may defend itself, but France may not!! (A joke!)
p. 78: Lenin (“Vorbote,” No. 84, Vol. 1 **) sees the “beginning of revolutionary mass struggle” in the famine riots sweeping Germany!! What a delusion! On the contrary, “the German people utterly lack revolutionary qualities” (78). 82: Meyer London declared on January 18, 1916, in the U.S. House of Representatives that he would defend his fatherland in the event of an attack!!!! 84–5: Lederer’s statement against the internationalist socialists of Germany, and Borchardt’s counterattack against Lederer. “You will never succeed in abandoning the ‘defense of the fatherland’!!!” And Liebknecht, for his part, was in favor of defending the fatherland!!

* See V. I. Lenin, Works, 4th ed., vol. 21, p. 272. Ed.
** Ibid., vol. 22, pp. 96–108. Ed.

Engels. Letters to Zorge
Engels to Zorge, 3 June 1885… Regarding subsidies to steamship companies (following the repeal of the Exclusive Law); “a split will, in all likelihood, occur—and it will only prove beneficial. A petty-bourgeois socialist faction is inevitable in a country like Germany, where the petite bourgeoisie has ‘existed from time immemorial,’ even more so than historical privilege”… 85
29 April 1886: “In Germany, in times of peace, everything is steeped in philistinism; here, the sting of French competition is absolutely indispensable. And once that happens, there’s no turning back…” 86
22 February 1888: …“Let it only begin somewhere, and the bourgeoisie will be struck by the latent socialism that will then burst forth into the open and become manifest” (291)…

7 December 1889: …“The most repulsive thing here” (in England) — “the bourgeois ‘respectability’ that has become as ingrained in the working class as flesh and blood… Even Thomas Mann, whom I regard as the finest of them all, readily speaks of how he will have breakfast with the Lord Mayor. When you compare this with the French, you see what revolution truly means” 87… * 8 February 1890 …“The Fabians—well-meaning band of educated bourgeois who once opposed Marx… Their chief aim… is to win over the bourgeoisie to socialism and thereby introduce it through peaceful, constitutional means” (331)…
((On the Fabians, 393 [18 March 1893] – p. 401 [11 November 1893]… they seek to infuse liberalism with socialism; in turn, it is these very Fabians who must be imbued with the spirit of the workers)). 19 April 1890… In England, there is a sea of debate, endless squabbles, and the entrenched prejudices of skilled workers, and so on and so forth.
…“But movement is advancing beneath the surface, capturing ever broader strata—and for the most part, it is doing so among those who, until now, had remained utterly inert at the very bottom” (Engels’ emphasis), “the masses—and the day is not far off when this mass will suddenly rediscover itself” (Engels’ emphasis), “when it becomes clear to them that it is precisely they who

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 23, p. 101. Ed.

NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
itself is that colossal, moving mass”… * (336).

4 March 1891… Here, the dockworkers and gasworkers—and their trade unions—have suffered defeat: their “new trade union has been shattered, while the old, conservative trade unions, though wealthy” (Engels’ emphasis), “and precisely because they are timid, remain alone on the battlefield” (359).

14 September 1891. The Newcastle Congress of Trade Unions was also a victory (as was the International Congress)… The “old” (Engels’ emphasis) trade unions—led by the textile workers—and the entire reactionary faction within the working class had exerted every effort to overturn the 1890 decision to institute an eight-hour workday. They failed… and the bourgeois newspapers acknowledged the defeat of the bourgeois labor party “with utter horror, wailing, and gnashing of teeth” ** (368).

24 October 1891… On the possibility of war… we Germans must (perhaps) “replay the year 1793”… It would be disastrous if war were to break out and bring us to power “prematurely; we must be prepared for such a contingency” (371)…
Idem, 376: in the event of such a war, “we shall have to go all in” (376).
…“The masses (in Germany) are superb—and in most cases, superior to their leaders”… (399) (7 October 1893).

2 December 1893… The difficulties facing the development of the labor movement in America: 1) the system of “party-based governance” (two parties; loss of votes for the third); 2) immigration divides workers into two groups—and immigrants into subgroups; add to that the Black workers; 3) protective tariffs grant workers benefits that stem from “their exposure to the influence of prosperity,” something that does not exist in Europe… (403)…

412 (12 May 1894): sectarian tendencies within the Social Democratic Federation and among German-American socialists in America reduce theory to “petrified orthodoxy”… ((so that workers, lacking any real development, swallow the theory whole, without question)).

* See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th ed., vol. 23, pp. 101–102. Ed.
** Ibid., p. 102. Ed.

JOURNAL “THE BELL”
ERNST HEILMANN. “THE ESSENCE OF THE DISPUTE” “Die Glocke,” 1916, No. 20 (12 August 1916).
Ernst Heilmann. “The Essence of the Dispute” (770–786).
The goal is to set forth “the fundamental ideas of the three disputing factions” (770):…
“The Majority, the Business Cooperation Group, and the Internationalists (the Liebknecht Group)” (771)…

1 – They desire “German victory.”
2 – “An end to the war on a draw.”
3 – “Germany’s defeat” (771)… “The first two positions are grounded in the defense of the fatherland, although the Business Cooperation Group is exceedingly careful to ensure that it does not stray beyond the bounds of pure defense; by contrast, the adherents of the Third International reject the principle of ‘defense of the fatherland’ as a misleading phrase” (771)… “The Liebknecht Group has remained entirely true to itself… This tendency has now united to form a new party, adopting the Spartacist program. Following its theoretical leader, the Russian Lenin, it seeks to impose upon all social democratic parties, as their international duty, the obligation to unconditionally strive for the defeat of their own country by any means possible: through illegal leaflets, clandestine organizations, mass strikes, and uprisings” (771)… “In Russia, supporters of this tendency openly and without hesitation refer to themselves as defeatists” (772).
Spartacist propaganda—which teaches that enemy invasion is by no means the worst possible outcome, and that, on the contrary, it may even lead to the conquest of freedom—probably enjoys the largest number of adherents among Russian émigré theorists in Switzerland; in practice, however, it can hold significance only for Germany—and is therefore propaganda for German defeat” (772)…
“The Business Cooperation Group, or the Zimmerwald Right, whose theoretician is Kautsky and whose political leaders are Haase and Ledebour, not only draws from the actual state of affairs that this

The notebook “ο” (“OMICRON”)
The war must end without victors or vanquished—but it is precisely this outcome that the great struggle itself desires.
“To criticize this half‑hearted stance is exceedingly easy and straightforward. The claim that Germany’s defensive task has been resolved so blatantly contradicts the facts that it can elicit nothing but laughter among those who truly understand” (773)...
“It [the majority] is working toward a peace that, while desirable, can only be brought about by the governments currently in power” (778).
“We must bury once and for all the notion of catastrophe—or of revolution—as the means to construct a socialist society, not merely insofar as it pertains to some specific moment, but in principle. To be a socialist means, in essence, to be fundamentally anti‑revolutionary” (emphasis added by the author); “the opposing view is nothing more than a legacy of the bourgeoisie’s liberation struggles—a legacy from which we are far from having fully emancipated ourselves spiritually” (780)...
p. 782: Examples (half a page of names) of the sons of counts and generals—officers and the like—who perished in the war: the argument that “in the face of the enemy, we have all become equal” (783) (!!!!).
“The crisis of August 4th politics is, therefore, ultimately nothing other than a revival of the age‑old struggle between the theory of catastrophe and evolutionary doctrine—a struggle that, now that evolutionary perspectives have prevailed, is drawing ever closer to its conclusion. Thus, barring the occasional dozen defectors on either side, we see the same old, mutually opposed ranks of reformists and revolutionaries—or, if you will, revisionists and radicals—and we hear the same old slogans” (784)...
“Despite countless denunciations, the evolutionary‑historical perspective continued to gain ground within the party, and it will prevail even if, in the aftermath of the war, the fury of peoples grievously afflicted by hardship should at times erupt into revolutionary upheavals. Turbulent—even bloody—episodes may delay or accelerate development, but they can never alter its fundamental contours” (785–786).

Here lies the crux of the first half of this sentence:
“In the very fact that the number of people earning their livelihood not through private enterprise or receiving wages and salaries from private hands is steadily increasing, socialism is being realized more and more with each passing day. The worker employed by a state-owned, municipal, or cooperative enterprise is just as socialized as the physician affiliated with a health insurance fund or the union official” (784).
LIBKNECHT V. and MARX (LETTER TO V. LIBKNECHT, 1878)
V. Libknecht. “On the Eastern Question: Should Europe Become Cossack?” A Word of Caution to the German People. Second Edition. Leipzig, 1878, pp. 57 and 59. Quoted in “Sozialistische Monatshefte,” 1916, p. 1095 (No. 21, October 19, 1916), in an article by Schiffel, who claimed that two letters from a “friend”—clearly Marx—had been appended to Libknecht’s pamphlet. (In the first edition of Libknecht’s pamphlet, these appendices were absent.) This is what Marx had written at the time:
(1848–1878)
Marx on English workers in 1878 “Thanks to the period of corruption that began in 1848, the English working class was gradually consumed by ever‑deepening demoralization, until it finally came to regard itself as little more than a mere appendage of the Great Liberal Party—that is, the party of its own oppressors, the capitalists. Leadership over the English working class had entirely passed into the hands of venal trade union leaders and professional agitators. These fellows, following in the footsteps of Gladstone, Bright, Mandell, Morley, the factory‑owning rabble, and others, clamored in every possible way

THE NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
They glorified the Tsar—the liberator of nations—yet did nothing to lift a finger for their own brothers, condemned by South Wales’ mine owners to starve to death. What pitiful souls! To crown this disgraceful spectacle, during the final votes in the House of Commons (February 7 and 8, when most of the pillars of the Great Liberal Party—Forster, Lowe, Garrow, Goschen, Hartington, and even the great John Bright himself—abandoned their troops to fate and fled the chamber just before the vote, lest they risk too much by casting any decisive vote)—the only working‑class representatives in the House of Commons, and, shockingly, the direct representatives of miners and even hereditary miners themselves, Burt and the insignificant MacDonnell, voted alongside the tail end of the “Great Liberal Party,” which cheered the Tsar! But the rapidly unfolding Russian plans soon shattered the spell, bringing an end to the mechanical agitation (the five‑pound treasury notes—these were the main springs of the mechanism); at that very moment, it would have been “life‑threatening” for the Mottersheds, Gowells, Johns Gails, Shiptons, Osbornes, and the entire gang to utter a single word at any open workers’ rally; even their closed meetings—where admission was granted only by ticket—were forcibly disrupted and dispersed by the masses.”
NB: Marx’s letter (to Libknecht?) of 1878

JAPANESE AND THE CHAUVINISM OF AMERICAN WORKERS
“Die Neue Zeit,” 1913 (Vol. 31, No. 2), pp. 410–412 (dated June 20).

1913)
NB
Workers’ Chauvinism
American workers and their .
chauvinism toward the Japanese
Erwin Gudde. “The New Exclusionary Law Against the Japanese in the United States.” (Date: San Francisco, May 21, 1913.)
This law—prohibiting Japanese nationals from purchasing land (with leases permitted for only three years)—was signed by the governor on May 19, 1913, despite the strong objections of Woodrow Wilson.
This was described as “an exceptional law of the worst kind” (410) and “a policy even more egregious than Prussian policies toward the Poles” (412).
And American workers are guilty of “chauvinism” (NB) (412). “The gentlemen of the American Federation of Labor not only seek to strip the ‘yellow’ race of all rights; they aim to expel them from the country altogether” (411).
Workers in the service of imperialists…
The Socialist Party too!!!
This (412)…
This exclusionary law “demonstrates to us that the population of California—and above all its working population—is hitching itself to the chariot of American imperialists, who have long been preparing for war with Japan. The Socialist Party, too, falls short in this matter” (411). The law is “but one link in a long chain of statutes.”
GREYLICH AND THE “GRÜTLIANER”
GREYLICH. “OPEN LETTER TO THE GRÜTLI ASSOCIATION OF GOTTINGEN”
“Grütlianer,” No. 230, 1916 (October 2, 1916).
Hermann Greylich. “Open Letter to the Grütli Association of Göttingen.”

NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
Only a minority of workers participate in the labor movement. “As a result, living standards have risen only slightly—and even then, primarily among the upper strata of the working class. The broad masses of workers remain trapped in the grip of want, hardship, and deprivation. Consequently, doubts periodically arise as to whether the old path was the right one. Critics search for new avenues, placing their main hopes on more energetic action. In this direction, attempts are made—though they usually end in failure—which, in turn, drives many back to the old tactics with renewed vigor. Anyone who traces the history of the labor movement over a more or less extended period will see this wave-like pattern… But then came the Great War… for the broad masses… a bitter disillusionment… a monstrous deterioration in living conditions, pushing even those layers that had previously led relatively comfortable lives into dire need—and thereby intensifying the revolutionary current. Everything old comes under question: principles, tactics, and organization… Those who can rise above the daily clamor of petty concerns… will find this great debate” (rooted in revolutionary principles and tactics) “not only comprehensible but also something that does not lead one to despair. Of course, plenty of foolishness was committed—on both sides…
Until now, I alone have almost invariably been the one to make conciliatory efforts… The party leadership truly failed to live up to its responsibilities and succumbed too readily to the influence of hotheads… The Central Committee of the Grütli Association resolved to adopt the path of “practical national politics,” which it intended to pursue outside the party… Why did it not pursue this path within the party? Why did it almost always leave me to bear the brunt of the struggle against the ultra-radicals?…
…I am firmly convinced that from the present ferment within the party, good wine will ultimately emerge—if only the barrel is not sealed before fermentation has run its course… The party can be nothing other than proletarian; it must not become a sect whose actions are incomprehensible to the proletariat… If he (the Grütli Association)… rejects an agreement with the party, then for me there is no longer any place in that association. I believe in the future of the party and therefore always stand with it.” (End.) Bern, September 26, 1916.
Here, too, is the Central Committee’s reply to Greylich from the Grütli Association. Ultra-radicalism and “mediation”—both stand opposed to the very existence of the Grütli Association. Here, too, appears the satirical piece “Who Is Spartacus?” (a celebration)!!!
“STONES IN PLACE OF BREAD!”
“G gй t I i апег,” No. 255, October 31. Editorial: “Stones
in Place of Bread” by a “trade union official”: it is precisely the “radical tendency” that, they say, yields
“stones instead of bread.” What is needed, they claim, is a “reformist understanding,” a “practical social reform,” a “democratic–socialist reform” (in opposition to the so‑called “Marxists”)…
“PRINCIPLED DISAGREEMENT IN EVALUATION”
No. 253, October 28, 1916. Editorial: “Principled Disagreement in Evaluation.” A quotation from the Leipziger Volkszeitung, which allegedly defends a “socialist standpoint.” The Zurich and Bern newspapers, they say, criticize Pernerstorfer. We, however, disagree both with the majority in Germany and with the Zurich and Bern papers—we are committed to “legal” paths. As for Adler’s case, we see it as nothing more than “pure folly”…
“THERE ARE NO PRINCIPLED DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN US!”
No. 249, October 24, 1916. Editorial: “There are no principled disagreements between us!” (in quotation marks)—these were the words of Huber (Rorschach) at the Grütli delegates’ assembly—but here, Adler’s Volksrecht is praised… Yet we fundamentally condemn him!

Notebook “ο” (“OMICRON”)
“‘NATIONALIST WEEDS’ ARE BEING SEPARATED FROM THE ‘INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST WHEAT’”
No. 248. October 23, 1916. Editorial: “‘Nationalist Weeds’ Are Being Separated From the ‘International Socialist Wheat’” (as the representative of the Swiss Social Democratic Party declared at the Congress of Italian Socialists in Switzerland).
“THESES FOR A REPORT”
No. 235. October 7, 1916. Theses for the Grütli Program.
“NATURALIZATION OF FOREIGNERS”
Nos. 243 (October 17, 1916) and a series preceding it (Nos. 237 [October 10]–243). Articles on “I and the Naturalization of Foreigners”...
— The “Nine-Person Commission” (including Greulich and Wülschlegger) submitted a petition in 1912.
Compulsory naturalization after fifteen years. The naturalization fee not to exceed 300 francs!!
Nos. 242 and 243.
“PARTY OR GRÜTLI ALLIANCE?”
“Grütlianer,” October 18, 1916. The “Social-Patriotic Party” of Switzerland.
“TRADE UNIONS AND THE MILITARY QUESTION” “Grütlianer,” No. 216 (September 15, 1916): an article titled “Trade Unions and the Military Question.”
(*) Kapellenstrasse, 6, Bern (**) This article by I. G., Basel, is excellent—purely proletarian and thoroughly revolutionary-internationalist.
In the “Schweizerische Metallarbeiter-Zeitung” (*) (1916, No. 38, September 16, 1916), the correspondent [I. G., Basel] (**), when discussing the aforementioned question, arrives at a concise and clear conclusion: “It is the duty of trade union members to ensure that the military question is resolved in principle and with clarity by the party. The most vigorous struggle against militarism—and against the defense of the fatherland—today; disarmament together with socialism—tomorrow.”
On this point, the newspaper’s editorial staff (the “Editorial Postscript”), led by T. Schneeberger, notes that trade unions as such should not concern themselves either with the issue of arms reduction or with the question of disarmament. Just because a person is a member of his trade union does not make him a social democrat or an anti-militarist; his political or religious views bear no inherent relation to his trade union affiliation. To be sure, in most cases a trade union member soon comes to embrace socialist or social-democratic views—but he expresses these views less within the trade union itself than in the specialized social-democratic organizations dedicated to that very purpose. This arrangement has proven highly expedient; moreover, since the range of tasks trade unions are called upon to perform in the economic sphere is already quite broad, this order ought to be preserved in the future as well. Besides, trade unions—or their organs—simply lack the capacity to carry out truly educational work in this area. Empty platitudes, of which there are many even in the article under discussion, will not advance the cause; they can scarcely persuade a person who has been raised, as is often the case, with entirely different convictions—and it is just as impossible to explain the essence of war in a few words or to impress an unbiased, impartial reader with exaggerations about the role of Swiss military forces in clashes with workers. It suffices to recall the struggles waged by workers in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, or even in free America to recognize that Swiss conditions are, after all, better than Russian ones.
But the assertion that “the worker has no fatherland” has become utterly trite—at a moment when, for the past two years, the overwhelming majority of workers across Europe have been fighting shoulder to shoulder with the bourgeoisie against the “enemies” of their own fatherland, while those remaining in the rear seek only to “hold on,” despite all privations and hardships. Should Switzerland ever come under external attack, we would likely witness the same spectacle. Perhaps here too, those who now deliver the loudest pronouncements would be the first to abandon their positions.

Notebook “ο” (“OMICRON”)
The “Grutlianer” reprints in boldface [the underlined] passages. In general, adding the editor’s name, it reprinted the entire postscript. On the “Metallarbei-
ter-Zeitung” it was printed: Editorial Board: O. Schneeberger and
K. Dürre ((NB)).
“The SWISS METALWORKERS’ NEWSPAPER,” vol. “REVIEW” “Schweizerische Metallarbeiter-Zeitung,” 1916, No. 40 (September 30, 1916)... An article by E. T. entitled “Review”: War of an “Economic (Industrial) Nature”... “The Collapse of the International”... “The Organization of Capitalists ‘Germany’” versus its counterpart, “England”... Beyond our specialized trades—such as fitter and the like—we must also be politicians and strive toward the “socialization of the means of production”... “The separation between trade union and politics is impossible”; we risk “condemning ourselves to the role of caretakers of capitalism”...
“REVIEW. (ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW)”
In No. 41 (October 7, 1916), an unsigned article appeared: “Review. (Another Point of View),” in which E. T. explicitly disagreed both with the author of the article “Trade Unions and the Military Question” and with the editorial postscript. He opposed the “isolation” of trade unions, their “restriction” to “purely professional matters.”
The author of the article defends himself over three and a half columns, arguing that we cannot possibly keep up with everything—after all, there is a mountain of reformist issues to address (!!), and that we have already published six articles on “imperialism,” each from a social-democratic perspective. He further points out that Schneeberger, as a representative of the Central Committee of the Metalworkers’ Union in Lucerne, had opposed, back in 1904, the idea of “throwing oneself (as a trade union) into political action”—and at the Lucerne Trade Union Congress, he had received 56 votes against 18. He argues that “instead of systematic” (p. 2, column 3) “productive work aimed primarily at fulfilling, as far as possible, the objectives set forth in the trade union statutes, we risk giving rise to boundless…

the mania to improve the world with all manner of projects, about which they will shout at the top of their lungs—yet not a single one of them will ever be realized. The majority of workers stand firmly grounded in the realm of facts. No matter how much they may wish for “the socialization of the means of production” to become a reality, they are nonetheless far from recklessly plunging into reckless adventures.
“NEW RHINE NEWSPAPER” “Neue Rheinische Zeitung.” A political–economic review, edited by K. Marx. (Issues I–V/VI bound together in a single volume.) London, 1850.
/Issue, January 1850. –//Issue, February 1850. – ///Issue, March 1850. – IV Issue, April 1850. –
V/V/ Issue (without cover), 1850.
p. 47, at the end. It seems that Mering reprinted almost everything (not quite everything *) from here in “Literary Heritage” (please verify!). Note the characteristic passage in the brief “Miscellaneous” item in the IV issue: “Gottfried Kinkel,” 90 (a scathing denunciation of his treacherously monarchist speech before the military court) (unsigned):
…“In the same way, Mr. Kinkel betrays even his own party before the military court, rambling on about certain plans to cede the left bank of the Rhine to France while declaring himself utterly innocent of these criminal intentions. Mr. Kinkel knows full well that talk of annexing the Rhineland Province to France was always intended only in the sense that, at the moment of decisive confrontation between revolution and counterrevolution, this province would inevitably

* Later, V. I. Lenin wrote “not all” above the word “all,” having discovered material omitted by Mering from the IV and II issues (see V. I. Lenin’s notes on pp. 614 and 615 of this volume). Ed.

NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
will side with the revolution, whoever may represent it—whether French or Chinese”...
(p. 71).
p. 397, in Volume III of Mering’s edition
Mering writes, pp. 479–480 (Volume III), that he omitted the entire “April Review” (meaning the review in the IV issue) and drew from the February issue (II issue) only what concerned California, etc., as well as the topic of Chinese socialism.
With a revolutionary nation—whether French or Chinese! Compare what Engels wrote in 1859 (?) in “On the Rhine” 91, where he stoked German national passions against Napoleon III, who was turning “our finest provinces” into mere pawns in diplomatic games, etc.
How remarkably relevant this is to the national question!
Everything depends on whether the nation in question is currently revolutionary—or if it is Napoleon III!!
Ibidem, Issue IV, p. 58 (p. 438, Volume III of Mering’s edition) (de Girardin, “Socialism and Taxation”) 92:
…“Behind the abolition of taxes lies the abolition of the state. For communists, the abolition of the state has but one meaning: it is the necessary outcome of the abolition of classes, for with the disappearance of classes comes the self‑extinction of the need for an organized force wielded by one class to keep other classes in subjugation…”
Ibidem, p. 55: “During a revolution, one may increase taxation to enormous proportions and use it as a form of attack on private property—but even then, such tax measures must either drive society further toward new revolutionary endeavors, or else, in the end, lead back to the restoration of old bourgeois relations…”
p. 436, Volume III in Mering’s edition

Issue 5/6, p. 158 (from the “Review: May–October”; dated London, November 1, 1850. Unsigned) 93.
NB:
two factions within Chartism: (I) the petty bourgeoisie plus the working-class aristocracy (petty-bourgeois reformists); (2) the “masses”—the truly revolutionary proletarians
…“The organizational structure of the Chartist Party, which had existed until now,
is likewise disintegrating. The petty bourgeois who still remain in the Party are closely aligned with the working-class aristocracy and constitute a distinctly
democratic faction whose program is limited to the People’s Charter and a few other
petty-bourgeois reforms.
The mass of workers, living in genuinely proletarian conditions, belong to the revolutionary faction of the Chartists.” (The leader of the First, Fergus O’Connor; the Second, Julian Harney and Ernest Jones) (p. 468, Volume III in Mering’s edition.)
Issue II, pp. 71–73 (in the “Review”) 94, concerning Russia’s counterrevolutionary role after 1848 and 1849, about the potential “European war” against Russia (with England ultimately deciding the course), about the “barbaric hordes of Russia” that might “flood Germany.”
How amusing!
Ibidem, p. 78 – (London, January 31, 1850) – regarding the revolution in China (the Chinese Republic—this is what “European reactionaries” might encounter in China)
p. 445, Volume III of Mering’s edition
“Our European reactionaries, in their imminent flight to Asia”: ha-ha!!
European reactionaries will flee the European Revolution for Asia, running all the way to the “walls” of China—and there they will find…

NOTEBOOK “ο” (“OMICRON”)
Upon them was inscribed: “Chinese Republic. Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!” Such is Marx’s line of reasoning.
Ibidem, p. 80: The case of Switzerland, it is argued, demonstrates what “illusory ‘independence’ and ‘autonomy’” truly mean for small states surrounded by the great powers of the modern era—either the Holy Alliance will crush Switzerland, or the revolution “will not tolerate” such a treacherous and cowardly government at the very heart of Europe…
The discussion of Switzerland arises in connection with the publication of a plan for an expedition against Switzerland (Germany + Austria + Russia + France)—a strategy to combat France through sabotage directed at Switzerland and Turkey. The “Holy Alliance” stands opposed to the revolution.
“One thing is certain: this year, the Holy Alliance will either move first against Switzerland or Turkey, or directly against France—and in both cases, the fate of the Swiss Federal Council is sealed. No matter who enters Bern first—the Holy Alliance or the revolution—the Swiss Federal Council has already doomed itself through its cowardly neutrality. The counterrevolution cannot be satisfied with mere concessions from a body whose origins are, more or less, revolutionary; nor can the revolution afford to tolerate for even a moment the existence of such a treacherous and cowardly government at the very heart of Europe, surrounded as it is by three nations that have been most deeply drawn into the revolutionary movement. The conduct of the Swiss Federal Council provides the most striking—and let us hope, the final—example of what ‘illusory independence’ and ‘autonomous self‑determination’ really amount to for small states encircled by the great powers of our time” (p. 80). (End.)

And on p. 72: Switzerland proved cowardly “both toward the Holy Alliance and toward the émigrés” (NB)… “If Switzerland has offended the Holy Alliance, then, on the other hand, it has also betrayed the revolution” (p. 73).
P. 72: There is confidence that a European war is imminent—Russia, poised to clash with Turkey, will unleash it. The revolution is gaining momentum in Paris—the “center of the revolution” (p. 72)—and in “Western Europe” (sic!! pp. 71–72: “Western Europe”)…
In France, the revolution is indeed on the rise (p. 74), and the peasantry will be drawn into the movement; hence the “confidence in the revolution’s imminent victory” (p. 74) (sic!!)…
THE SAYING OF SAINT-SIMON
… “It is well known that Saint-Simon asserted that France would suffer infinitely less damage from the sudden death of a thousand of its highest-ranking officials or members of the royal family than from the death of a thousand of its finest workers—a claim for which he was subsequently accused” (p. 11, according to Émile Caléry’s work, Wilhelm Weitling, Zurich, 1887, No. XI of the ‘Social-Democratic Library’).
According to the German Brockhaus Encyclopedic Dictionary, Saint-Simon did not speak of 1,000—but of 10,000 (NB)—when he made this remark in “The Political Parable,” the inaugural issue of L’Organisateur (1820).