Sh’L
TO THE PLAN FOR THE ARTICLE “EUROPEAN CAPITAL AND AUTOCRACY”
JÙ 15, FORWARD, APRIL 190S¹.
Europeans on Russian Finance.
End
1) The Economist] *.
Articles
2) The [bourgeoisie] is pressing the [bourgeoisie] for “peace.”
The international [bourgeoisie] is counter‑revolutionary.
The international [proletariat] stands for revolution³.
1 In the Leningrad Collection, p. 117, there appears a “Note on the War,” which served as the plan for the article “European Capital and Autocracy” (Works, Vol. VII, pp. 175–180).
s The article quotes from JVs 32 (March 2, 18, Vol. LXIII, pp. 438–439) of the English journal The Economist, specifically the opening paragraph of the article “Russian Financial Troubles” (“Financial Crisis in Russia”).
1 The final paragraph of the article begins with the words: “Only one force can stand against the international union of moderate, conservative bourgeoisie: the international union of the revolutionary proletariat” (see Works, Vol. VII, p. 180).
1 7 2 ]

year”
SEPARATE PRINT FROM No. 18, FORWARD.
A separate print has just been released from No. 95
of Iskra— the resolution of the Party Council, dated July 7,
1905, in the city of Geneva. As might have been expected*, this resolution turns out to be nothing but a web of the most blatant distortions of truth. Anyone who takes the trouble to independently verify the documents pertaining to this matter—documents that were long ago published for general information—will easily be convinced of what has been said. We will limit ourselves to brief remarks on the principal**
“deviations from the truth” committed by our Council.
We are told that the Council sought to ensure that internal struggles within the Party did not undermine its unity. This is untrue. From the undisputed and irrefutable documents, all Party members should know that more than a year ago, in January 1904, members of the Central Committee—Lenin and Vasilyev****—proposed to the Council that it appeal to the entire Party with a call to end the boycott and the secret appropriation of party funds by local circles. The Council rejected their proposal. Instead, the Council directly took part in the Party’s secret split, sanctifying the struggle waged by a clandestine minority organization for “co-optation.” As documentary evidence now clearly demonstrates, this struggle had been ongoing since the Second Congress—that is, since August 1903—through November or December 1904.
Thus, beginning in January
1904,
the Council was shamelessly deceiving the entire Party, while in reality it was far from being a Council at all.
* The words “As might have been expected” have been struck out. Ed.
** From the words “the most blatant distortions” to the end of the sentence—“indications of the principal”—have been struck out. Ed.
*** The words “our Council” have been struck out, and the phrase “Let us note the principal” has been added. Ed.
**** F. V. Lengnik. Ed.
AND THE DISPUTED COUNCIL
[ 73 J

7 4

the Party—and became the instrument of a clandestine minority organization. Not only the conciliatory Central Committee, but even Iskra itself publicly and in print acknowledged the existence of this organization during the period when the Central Committee shifted to the side of the minority.
As the instrument of a clandestine minority organization, the Council directed all its efforts toward evading the Party-wide Congress—which the committees had demanded—by means of deception**. For an entire year and a half, social‑democratic work in Russia was hampered by the disorganization brought about by the foreign minority, which sent its lackeys to Russia***. For an entire year and a half, the committees in Russia waged a relentless, desperate struggle for a Congress—a struggle against the Geneva Council, which, in the most shameless manner****, concealed committee resolutions while consistently enjoying the support of so‑called conciliatory members of the Central Committee***** in this noble endeavor. Every major step in this agonizing struggle against the unworthy and sordid****** conduct of the heroes******* of the secret split has now been documented in the literature. As early as October 1904—six months ago—it was demonstrated, for example, in Orlovsky’s pamphlet “The Council Against the Party,” that the Council had deceitfully******** avoided the Congress to which it was obligated under the Party Statute. One after another, a long series of Party committees in Russia subsequently expressed formal distrust in the Council and in all central organs. But the Council paid no heed to this, openly mocking the Party. The Council was the instrument of the minority; the Council now openly acknowledges, in its resolution of April 7, 1905, that it was one of the contending parties—*
From the words “in the most shameless manner” to the end of the sentence “the Party Council,” everything has been struck out and replaced with: “it was not the highest organ of the Party.”
Ed.
** The words “by means of deception” have been struck out. Ed.
*** The last five words have been struck out. Ed.
**** The words “in the most shameless manner” have been struck out. Ed.
***** Starting from “while enjoying” and ending with “members of the Central Committee,” everything has been struck out.
Instead, the text reads: “or returned them, accompanied by the most coarse insults—‘fraudsters, base hucksters, document forgers’—expressions taken from Martov’s letter, see Orlovsky’s pamphlet ‘The Council Against the Party.’” Ed.
****** The last three words have been struck out. Ed.
Instead of “heroes,” the text now reads “activists.” Ed.
Instead of “deceitfully,” the text now reads: “without explanation of the reasons.” Ed.