you need to prepare much more seriously before writing like that! Otherwise it is easy to disgrace yourself
– I warn you entre nous*, in a friendly way, eye to eye, in case you ever
speak like that in print or at a meeting.

The Belgian strike? Firstly, it is possible that on this question of fact, a particular question, Engels was mistaken. Of course that is possible. We must gather everything he wrote about
this. Secondly, regarding the general strike in general, the events of recent times, 1905,
have finally given something new, which Engels did not know. Engels was accustomed for decades to hear
only empty phrases about the “general strike” from the anarchists, whom he rightly hated and
despised. And the events afterwards showed a new type of “mass strike”, political,
i.e. decidedly non-anarchist. This new thing Engels did not yet know and could not know.

This must not be forgotten.

Was not the Belgian strike a transition from the old to the new? Could Engels at that time (1891-1892?? he was already 71-72 years old; dying) see that this was not
an old Belgian (the Belgians were long Proudhonists) belch, but a transition to the new? This must be pondered.

Regarding the “defence of the fatherland”, you are, in my opinion, falling into abstraction and unhistoricalness. I repeat what I said in the article against Yuri: defence of the fatherland = justification
of participation in war. Nothing more. To generalize this, to make it a “general principle” is ridiculous,
the height of unscientificness. (I will send you the American program of the S. L. P.** with this ridiculous
generalization.) Wars are an extremely motley, diverse, complex thing. One cannot approach with a general
template.
(I) Three main types: the relation of an oppressed nation to an oppressor (every war is a
continuation of politics; politics is the relation between nations, classes, etc.). As a general
rule, war is legitimate on the side of

* between us. Ed.
** Socialist Labour Party. Ed.

the oppressed (no matter whether it is defensive or offensive in the military sense).
(II) The relation between two oppressing nations. Struggle for colonies, for markets,
etc. (Rome and Carthage; England and Germany 1914-1917). As a general rule, war of this kind on both sides is robbery; and the attitude of democracy (and socialism) towards it
falls under the rule: “two thieves are fighting, let both perish”...
(III) Third type. A system of equal nations. The question is far more complicated!!!! Especially if alongside civilized, comparatively democratic nations stands
tsarism. That was the case (approximately) in Europe from 1815 to 1905.
1891. The colonial policy of France and Germany is insignificant. Italy,
Japan, the United States have no colonies at all (now they do). In Western Europe a system
(this is NB!! think about it!! do not forget it!! we live not only in separate
states, but also in a certain system of states; anarchists may ignore
this; we are not anarchists), a system of states, in general constitutional, national. Next to them a mighty, unshaken, pre-revolutionary tsarism, robbing and oppressing everyone for hundreds of years, having suppressed the revolutions of 1849 and 1863.
Germany (of 1891) is a country of advanced socialism. And this country is threatened by tsarism in
alliance with Boulangism!
The situation is quite, quite different from that of 1914-1917, when tsarism was undermined by 1905,
and Germany waged war for world domination. A different kettle of fish!!
To identify, even to liken the international situations of 1891 and 1914 is
the height of unhistoricalness.
The fool Radek wrote recently in a Polish appeal (“Befreiung Polens”):
“Staatenbau”* is not the goal of the s.-d. struggle. That is supremely stupid! It is semi-anarchism, semi-idiocy!
No, no, we are not at all indifferent to Staatenbau, to the system of states, to their interrelations.

* (“Liberation of Poland”): “state-building”. Ed.