London, 24[-25] November 1871 

*My dear Laura and Toole,* 

What with the International business, what with the * visits from 
members of the Commune, *I have not found the time to write. 
How my time is encroached upon, you may judge from one case. 
At Petersburg they have been translating Das Kapital into Russian, 
but they had reserved the first chapter because I had asked them 
to do so, since I intended to re-write it in a more popular manner. 
Since the events of Paris I was continually prevented from 
fulfilling my promise and was at last compelled to limit myself to a 
few alterations, in order not to stop the progress of the publication 
altogether.* 718 

As for the calumnies against Toole, *it is all moonshine*, a 
canard put about by the French branch No. 2. Serraillier, the 
secretary for France, *wrote immediately to Bordeaux. The six 
sections there existing have answered by a vote of absolute 
confidence in the illustrious Toole. 

As to the scandals that have taken place at London and Geneva, 
I must begin from the beginning. 

Amongst other French refugees we had admitted to the General 
Council Theisz, Chalain and Bastelica. The latter was hardly 
admitted when he proposed Avrial and Camélinat, but * est modus 
in rebus> *and we found that there were now enough * Proudhon- 
ists *in our ranks. On different pretexts the election of these two 
worthies was therefore delayed until the Conference, and dropped 
after the Conference, the latter having passed a Resolution 
inviting us not to admit too many refugees.© Hence* the great 
rage of citizens Avrial and Camélinat. 

* On the Congress itself the Resolution on the political action of 
the working class was violently opposed by the Bakuninists— 
Robin, the Spaniard Lorenzo and the* Corsican Bastelica. * The 

@ Paul Lafargue’s jocular nickname - » there’s measure in everything (Horace, 
Satirae, Book 1, Satire 1) - © K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘Resolutions of the Conference 
of Delegates of the International Working Men’s Association Assembled at London 
from 17th to 23rd September 1871’. I: Composition of General Council. 

latter, an empty-headed and very pretentious fellow, got the worse 
of it and was rather roughly handled. His main quality *—i.e. his 
amour-propre—* got him into steam *. 

There was a further incident. 

* On the affair of the* ‘Alliance of Socialist Democracy’ * and 
the * dispute in Romance Switzerland, * the Conference appointed 
a* committee *(of which I was a member) and which met in my 
house.**” Outine on the one side, Bastelica and Robin on the 
other, were summoned as witnesses. Robin behaved in the most 
shabby and cowardly manner.* After having had his say (at the 
beginning of the meeting) he declared that he must leave and 
rose, intending to go. Outine told him that he must stay, that the 
investigation was going to be a serious one and that he would not 
like to discuss him in his absence. Robin, in an admirable series of 
tactical moves, approached the door. Outine apostrophised him 
violently, saying that he would have to accuse him of being the 
mainspring of the Alliance’s intrigues. *Meanwhile, to secure a 
safe retreat,* the great Robin had partly opened the door and, 
like a true Parthian, delivered a parting shot at Outine with the 
words: “Then I despise you.’ 

On 19 September, with Delahaye for intermediary, he communi- 
cated the following epistle to the Conference: 

‘Called upon as a witness in the matter of the Swiss dispute, before the 
committee nominated to examine it, I put in an appearance in the hope of 
contributing to an appeasement. 

‘Having been directly impugned, I state categorically that I do not accept the 

role of accused and will refrain from attending those meetings of the Conference 
at which the Swiss question is to be discussed. 

‘19 September 1871. 
“P. Robin.’ 

Several members of the Conference, amongst whom De Paepe, 
demanded that the fellow be expelled forthwith from the General 
Council but on my advice it was resolved that he be asked to 
withdraw his letter and that, in case of refusal, the matter be left 
in the hands of the General Council. Since Robin obstinately 
persisted in standing by his letter, he was eventually expelled from 
the Council. 

* Meanwhile, he had addressed to myself the following * billet 
doux of 28 September. 

‘Citizen Marx, 

‘I have been under great personal obligations to you, nor have these been a 
burden to me so long as I believed that nothing could change my respectful 

feelings of friendship towards you. Today, being unable to subordinate my 
gratitude to my conscience, and sorry though I am to break with you, I believe I 
owe you the following statement. 

‘I am convinced that, yielding to personal animosity, you have uttered or 
supported unjust accusations against the objects of that animosity, members of the 
International, whose sole crime is not to share the same. 

‘P. Robin’ 

*I did not think it worth my while to answer to* R. R. R.— 
Robin the sheep. (He was already known by that name to Rabelais, 
who specifically includes him in Panurge’s flock.) Let me now 
return to our other sheep.” 

After the Conference, Avrial and Camélinat urged the forma- 
tion of a French branch (‘London French Section of 1871’).°%8 
Collaborating therein were Theisz, Bastelica (who had already 
decided to go back to Switzerland and wished to create a prop for 
Bakunin in London before he left) and Chalain (a completely 
worthless wag). They published their own Rules in the paper Qui 
Vivel” of which more anon. Those Rules were contrary to the 
General Rules. In particular, these gentry (there were 20 of them, 
amongst whom several informers; their secretary was the illustri- 
ous Durand, publicly branded an informer by the General Council 
and expelled from the International) arrogated to themselves 
the right to nominate delegates to the General Council with impera- 
tive mandates, at the same time resolving that no one belong- 
ing to their section must accept nomination as a member of the 
General Council save when sent as delegate by the Section it- 
self. 

Even before their Rules had been confirmed by the General 
Council, they had the impudence to send as Council delegates 
Chautard (a cretin who, during the Commune, was the laughing- 
stock of Paris) and Camélinat. They were politely invited to 
withdraw and await the confirmation of their Rules by the General 
Council. I was entrusted with a critique thereof. This first missive 
from the Council’ to the new Section was still couched in 
conciliatory terms. All they were asked to do was to delete the 
articles contrary to the spirit and the letter of the General Rules 
and Regulations. 

They were enraged. Avrial (in collaboration with Theisz and 
Camélinat) wrote a reply which cost him a fortnight’s work * and 

a ‘Association internationale des travailleurs. Section francaise 4 Londres de 1871. 
Statuts’, Qui Vive!, No. 6, 8-9 October 1871. - b K. Marx, ‘Resolution of the General 
Council on the Rules of the French Section of 1871’. 

to which the last literary finish was given* by Vermersch (Le Pere 
Duchéne).? 

The said individual had wormed his way into their ranks 
because, with the aid of a few typographers (refugees), they had 
founded the paper Qui Vive!, under the provisional editorship of 
Le Verdet {a Schopenhauerian philosopher). Vermersch made 
much of them and stirred them up against the General Council in 
order to get hold of the paper—and in this he succeeded. 

They sent Bastelica to Switzerland, whence they received a 
proclamation of policy: The General Council was under the yoke of 
Pan-Germanism (meaning me), authoritarian, etc. The prime duty 
of every citizen was to help bring about the fall of the said 
usurping Council, etc. All this emanated from Bakunin (acting 
through the Russian N. Zhukovsky, Secretary of the Alliance in 
Geneva,” Guillaume, etc.) whose clique (far from numerous in 
Switzerland by the by) had coalesced with Madame André Léo, 
Malon, Razoua and a small group of other French refugees *** who 
were not satisfied with playing second fiddle or *no_ part 
whatever.* 

Incidentally, all the idiots who had been members of the Federal 
Council in Paris, or who falsely made themselves out so to have 
been—such as, e.g., Rouillier, that brawler, braggart and drunken 
sot—had deluded themselves into thinking they would be 
admitted—as of right—as members of the General Council. 

Theisz (who had been nominated treasurer of the General 
Council, and not secretary for France) and Bastelica handed in 
their resignations from the Council on the grounds of the article 
in their Rules prohibiting them from accepting nomination by the 
Council. 

I eventually replied to the letter embellished by old man 
Vermersch, whose wit is far more Flemish than French. So 
crushing was this reply‘ and at the same time so ironic that they 
resolved not to continue their correspondence with the Coun- 
cil. Hence they were not recognised as a section of the Interna- 
tional. 

Old man Vermersch had become editor-in-chief of Qui Vivel. 
In No. 42 he printed a letter*”’ signed by Chautard, Chouteau 
(already denounced as an informer by Rigault in Patrie en 
danger*”), by Landeck—who had given his word to Mr Piétri (see 

a A. Avrial, ‘Aux Citoyens membres du Conseil général de |’Internationale’. - 
b Secretary of the Geneva Section of the Alliance of Socialist Democracy - © K. Marx, 
‘Resolution of the General Council on the French Section of 1871’. 

the last trial of the Internationalists in Paris) that he would 
withdraw from the International and from politics*—*and [by] 
similar riff-raff* in which they denounce the Resolution of the 
Conference which declares that the German working men (who 
demonstrated against the annexation of French provinces and, 
later, for the Commune, and many of whom are at this very 
moment suffering persecution at the hands of Bismarck) have 
done their duty,’ and adduce this as flagrant proof of ‘pan- 
Germanism’! 

This was rather too much for those zanies Theisz, Camélinat 
and Avrial. They refused to put their signatures to it. As members 
of the administrative council of Qui Vive!l, they also fell out with 
Vermersch over an immoral novel he had published in the 
feuilleton.© Vermersch, who had no further use for these gentry, 
proceeded, without naming names, to attack them in Qui Vivel. 
His nauseating articles have also led to quarrels with other 
refugees, and I believe that he yesterday had his face slapped by 
Sicard.*” Now they are determined to relieve him of his 
editorship. We shall see! He is believed to be paid by Versailles to 
compromise the Communards. To cut the story short: in London 
the conspiracy has failed. The French branch No. 2 is in complete 
disarray (needless to say, it was pushed by Le Lubez, Bradlaugh, 
Besson, etc.). Another and far larger French section has been 
formed which is in agreement with the General Council.**° 

In place of those who have resigned, we have nominated as 
members of the Council Ant. Arnaud, F. Cournet and G. Ranvier. 

In Geneva the ‘Alliance’, with André Léo, Malon, etc., is 
publishing a little journal La Révolution sociale (edited by one 
Claris) in which they openly attack the General Council and the 
Conference. Pan-Germanism (German and Bismarckian intellects), 
authoritarian, etc., etc. The ‘Jura Federation’ (still the same old 
bunch, but under another name) has held a tiny little Congress at 
Sonvilliers (Bernese Jura) at which it was resolved that all the 
sections of the International be invited to join the Jura Federation 
in order to bring about the meeting, at the earliest opportunity, of 
a special Congress at which the conduct of the Council should be 
reviewed and the resolutions of the Conference annulled as being 

a Troisiéme procés de l’Association Internationale des Travailleurs 4 Paris, Paris, 1870, 
p. 4. - © K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘Resolutions of the Conference of Delegates of the 
International Working Men’s Association Assembled at London from 17th to 23rd 
September 1871’. XIII: Special Votes of the Conference. - ¢ This refers to Alexis 
Berneville, the first novel in the series L’Infamie humaine, which was printed 
anonymously in the Qui Vive! in November-December 1871. 

contrary to the principle of autonomy which those resolutions 
‘openly infringe’.*’* In particular, they protest against Resolutions 
II, 2, 3, IX (Political action by the working class), XVI and XVII." 
They have not ventured to mention Resolution XIV, which is 
especially distasteful to Bakunin because it would reveal to the 
whole of Europe the turpitudes for which he was responsible in 
Russia.* 

The attitude of the Federal Council in Madrid (manipulated by 
Bakunin and Bastelica) is highly suspect. Since Lorenzo’s depar- 
ture Engels has received no reply whatever to his many letters. 
They are imbued with the doctrine of abstention in politics. Engels 
has written and told them today that, if they persist in their 
silence, steps will be taken.’ In any case Toole must act. I shall send 
him English and French copies of the new edition, revised and 
enlarged, of the Rules and Regulations.*” 

Our adversaries are indeed unfortunate. As J have already said, 
the first secretary of the dissident Section in London was 
G. Durand whom we unmasked as an agent of Versailles. The 
Bakuninists Blanc and Albert Richard (of Lyons) sold themselves 
to Bonaparte. They were over here to enrol members under his 
banner since—-Bonaparte is worth more than Thiers! 

Finally, the Béziers correspondent‘ of the hostile refugees in 
Geneva—virtually their only French correspondent—has been 
denounced to us by the Béziers section as a police agent (he is 
secretary to the superintendent of police)! *” 

I trust I shall soon have good news of the state of health of my 
beloved Schnaps‘ and of the whole family. 

Old Nick* 

As regards Theisz, he has lost all influence in Paris because of 
the praises meted out to him and to old man Beslay by the 
Versailles papers. 

Bastelica is the chief of Bakunin’s lickspittles. 

I should also remark that the attacks upon us by the Révolution 
sociale of Geneva are couched in more or less the same terms as 
those in the Journal de Genéve (the most reactionary newspaper in 

4K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘Resolutions of the Conference of Delegates of the 
International Working Men’s Association Assembled at London from 17th to 23rd 
September 1871’. XIV: Instructions to Citizen Outine. - > F. Engels, ‘To the Federal 
Council of the Spanish Region in Madrid’. - © Abel Bousquet - 4 Charles Etienne 
Lafargue - © Marx’s family nickname