AN UNSUCCESSFUL REFERENCE TO MARX

I
Plan
Outline, articles
Article
3rd point of outline
6th, 7th, 8th, 9th
-th point
4th point of outline paragraphs of article up to

"let us now turn from the episode"
40th paragraph of article plan
5th
"
44, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46
1 7th
"
"
i and 47 paragraphs of article
! 48, 49, 20, 24 paragraphs
!
4th point j 6th
)>
"
,
article
22nd paragraph of article plan
■: '

i
ё, 6, 1st
1 8th
"
"
23, 24 paragraphs of article y  acts of plan
9, <W, 44th points did not make it into the article.

a*
AN UNSUCCESSFUL REFERENCE TO MARX.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
( General substitution of the qu[estion]: "seiz[ure] of power" and M[a]r-
\ [ty]n[o]v. Stellung der Frage 1).
Minor substitutions: "virtu[o]sos of phil[isti]ni[sm]".
( Cit[ations] from Ansprache 2). l ^
\ Not about that.
/
Mach u[nd] Aven[arius] 3).
Turati. Irrelevant.
Ni|_hi]l about the essence of the qu[estion].
c Unsucc[essful] def[ence] of Iskra.
\ On the principl[ial] Qu[estion] ~ alias 4).

FROM PL EKHANOV'S ARTICLE IN NO. 00 NOTE 3 4):
[End of April 1905]
1) A distortion in that "Vperyod accuses Iskra" (col[umn] 1)
in the sense that this misrepresents the formulation of the question.
In fact, Martynov, even before the 9th, began to frighten the Vperyod-ists
with the necessity for them to participate in the revolutionary government
in the event of a victorious uprising led by the proletariat
(M[a]rt[y]n[o]v, p. 10 — II). (M[a]rt[y]n[o]v and
Iskra, NB c[i]t[e] NB from E[n]g[e]ls.)
Ergo, it was not Vperyod that dragged out the qu[esti]on of "seizure of power"
(This formulation is not ours, but Iskra's. This f[or]m[u]l[a]t[i]on is narrow),
but M[a]rt[y]n[o]v and Iskra, as a frightening away from a successful uprising.
2) A crudest distortion, th[a]t Vp[eryo]d called M[a]rx and E[n]g[e]ls
"virtuosos of ph[i]l[i]stin[ism]". M[a]rt[y]n[o]v is not Marx! I
Vp[eryo]d said that the change autocracy — liberal c[onsti]t[u]t[i]on — d[e]m[ocratic] republic — soc[ialist] rev[o]l[u]t[i]on is "true in general and on the whole", but Philistinism is limiting oneself to the first attack, to a secondary role, it is vulgarity. "To represent without leaps" is vulgarity. "To repres[ent] as a slowly and evenly rising straight line" is vulgarity. Pl[e]kh[ano]v substitutes the question.
3) Setting forth the "Address", Pl[e]kh[ano]v on this qu[esti]on
makes a new distortion, leaving in the shadows that it was written precisely
at the time when the complete victory of the people had a l r e a d y  not succeeded, w[h]en
the liberal b[ourgeo]isie had already replaced the a[u]tocracy, w[h]en,
consequently, the rev[oluti]on had already been curtailed and conjured away.
After the failure of the popular uprising, which did not yield complete
victory, M[a]rx and E[ng]els advise the w[orking] cl[as]s to orga[n]i[z]e and prepare. Is this the answer to the situation before the first uprising? Is this the answer to the assumption of a victorious uprising of the proletariat?? (and it was precisely from such an assumption that Iskra and M[a]rt[y]n[o]v proceeded).
4) Setting forth the "Address", Pl[e]kh[ano]v forgets to add the most important
indication of Marx: that the p[et]ty-b[our]g[eo]is democracy in Germany in 1848 and 48-49 "was more and more organizing itself", "while the working party was losing its only firm support" (p. 75 Ansprache).
Ergo: Marx notes the greater organization of the petty-bourgeois democracy, notes that the working party was in 1848 in the train of the bourgeoisie (p. 76 Ansprache). Therefore Marx directs all attention entirely to the necessity of the independent organization of the proletariat, therefore he considers the predominance of the petty-bourgeois party undeniable (p. 78 Ansprache), therefore he sees no chances for the predominance of the working party and its participation in the revolutionary government.
5) Concerning the participation of the working party (in the provisional) revolutionary government Marx is generally silent in the Ansprache "Address".
Plekhanov is therefore completely wrong when he asserts that Marx "did not even entertain the thought that the political representatives of the proletariat could, together with representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, work to create a new social order."
This is incorrect. Marx does not touch upon this thought in its concrete formulation with respect to the provisional revolutionary government. Marx does not raise the question of the participation of social-democrats in the provisional revolutionary government, but Plekhanov depicts Marx as deciding this question unconditionally in the negative.
Marx says: we, social-democrats, were all in the tail. We are worse organized; we must independently organize ourselves when the petty-bourgeois democracy, in the event of the revolution's success, will be in power.
Martynov concludes: we, social-democrats, now much better organized than the revolutionary petty-bourgeois democracy in Russia and constituting an unconditionally independent party, must fear that in the event of a successful uprising we will have to participate in the provisional revolutionary government.
Yes, Comrade Plekhanov, one thing is Marxism, another thing is Martynovism.