“What do the nations matter to us? What does the French 
Republic matter to us? Did we not long ago grasp the notion of 
nations and did we not determine the place of each of them; did we 
not assign to the Germans the sphere of theory, to the French that of 
politics, and to the English that of civil society? And the more so the 
French Republic! What is there to celebrate about a stage of 
development which has long been superseded, which has abolished 
itself as a result of its own consequences! If you want to give us some 
information about England it would be better if you described the 
latest phase that the socialist principle has reached there; tell us if 
one-sided English socialism still does not recognise how far it is below 
our principled heights and how it can claim to be only a phase [Ein 
Moment] and an obsolete one at that!” 

Keep calm, dear Germany. The nations and the French Republic 
matter a great deal to us. 

The fraternisation of nations, as it is now being carried out 
everywhere by the extreme proletarian party in contrast to the old 
instinctive national egoism and to the hypocritical private-egotistical 
cosmopolitanism of free trade, is worth more than all the German 
theories of true socialism put together. 

The fraternisation of nations under the banner of modern 
democracy, as it began from the French Revolution and developed 
into French communism and English Chartism, shows that the 
masses and their representatives know better than the German 
theoreticians how things stand. 

“But this has nothing whatever to do with what we are discussing. 
Who is talking about fraternisation, as it..., etc., about democracy, 
as it..., etc.2 We are talking about the fraternisation of nations in and 

for itself, about the fraternisation of nations, about Democracy, about 
democracy pure and simple, about democracy as such. Have you 
completely forgotten your Hegel?” 

“We are not Romans, we smoke tobacco.”* We are not talking 
about the anti-nationalist movement now developing in the world, we 
are talking about the abrogation of nationalities through the medium 
of pure thought— assisted by fantasy in the absence of facts — hap- 
pening in our head. We are not talking about real democracy which 
the whole of Europe is hastening to embrace and which is a quite 
special democracy, different from all previous democracies. We are 
talking about a quite different democracy which represents the mean 
between Greek, Roman, American and French democracy, in short 
about the concept of democracy. We are not talking about the things 
which belong to the nineteenth century, and which are bad and 
ephemeral, but about categories which are eternal and which existed 
before “the mountains were brought forth”. Briefly, we are not 
discussing what is being talked about but something quite different. 

To sum up: when English people, French people and those 
Germans who take part in the practical movement but are not 
theoreticians nowadays talk about democracy and the fraternisation 
of nations, this should not be understood simply in a political sense. 
Such fantasies still exist only among the German theoreticians and a 
few foreigners who don’t count. In reality these words now have a 
social meaning in which the political meaning is dissolved. The 
Revolution itself was something quite different from a struggle for 
this or that form of State, as people in Germany still quite frequently 
imagine that it was. The connection of most insurrections of that 
time with famine, the significance which the provisioning of the 
capital and the distribution of supplies assumed already from 1789 
onwards, the maximum, the laws against buying up food supplies, the 
battle cry of the revolutionary armies — “Guerre aux palais, paix aux 
chaumiéres” »— the testimony of the Carmagnole? according to which 
Republicans must have du pain‘ as well as du fer and du coeur‘— and 
a hundred other obvious superficialities already prove, without any 
more detailed investigation of the facts, how greatly democracy 
differed at that time from a mere political organisation. As it is it is 
well known that the Constitution of 1793 and the _ terror 

originated with the party which derived its support from the 
insurgent proletariat, that Robespierre’s overthrow signified the 
victory of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, that Babeuf’s 
conspiracy for equality revealed the final consequences of the 
democracy of ’93— insofar as these were at all possible at that time. 
The French Revolution was a social movement from beginning to 
end, and after it a purely political democracy became a complete 
absurdity. 

Democracy nowadays is communism. Any other democracy can only 
still exist in the heads of theoretical visionaries who are not 
concerned with real events, in whose view it is not the men and the 
circumstances that develop the principles but the principles develop 
of themselves. Democracy has become the proletarian principle, the 
principle of the masses. The masses may be more or less clear about 
this, the only correct meaning of democracy, but all have at least an 
obscure feeling that social equality of rights is implicit in democracy. 
The democratic masses can be safely included in any calculation of 
the strength of the communist forces. And if the proletarian parties 
of the different nations unite they will be quite right to inscribe the 
word “Democracy” on their banners, since, except for those who do 
not count, all European democrats in 1846 are more or less 
Communists at heart. 

Despite the fact of the French Republic having been “supersed- 
ed”, the Communists of all countries are fully justified in celebrating 
it. Firstly, all the nations which were stupid enough to let themselves 
be used to fight against the Revolution have owed the French a 
public apology ever since they realised what a sottise* they committed 
out of loyalty; secondly, the whole European social movement today 
is only the second act of the revolution, only the preparation for the 
dénouement of the drama which began in Paris in 1789, and now has 
the whole of Europe for its stage; thirdly, it is time, in our cowardly, 
selfish, beggarly, bourgeois epoch, to remember those great years 
when a whole people all at once threw aside all cowardice, selfishness 
and beggarliness, when there were men courageous enough to defy 
the law, who shrank from nothing and whose iron energy ensured 
that from May 31, 1793 to July 26, 1794* not a single coward, petty 
shopkeeper or stockjobber, in short, not a single bourgeois dared 
show his face in the whole of France. It is really necessary at a time 
when European peace is held together by a Rothschild, when a 
cousin Kochlin screams about protective tariffs, and a Cobden 

about free trade, and when a Diergardt preaches the salvation of 
sinful humanity through associations for raising up the working 
classes °—in truth it is necessary to remember Marat and Danton, 
Saint-Just and Babeuf, and the joy over victories at Jemappes and 
Fleurus.6 If that mighty epoch, these iron characters, did not still 
tower over our mercenary world, then humanity must indeed 
despair and throw itself into the arms of a cousin Kochlin, a Cobden 
or a Diergardt. 

Finally, fraternisation between nations has today, more than ever, 
a purely social significance. The fantasies about a European 
Republic, perpetual peace under political organisation, have become 
just as ridiculous as the phrases about uniting the nations under the 
aegis of universal free trade, and while all such chimerical 
sentimentalities become completely irrelevant, the proletarians of all 
nations, without too much ceremony, are already really beginning to 
fraternise under the banner of communist democracy. And the 
proletarians are the only ones who are really able to do this; for the 
bourgeoisie in each country has its own special interests, and since 
these interests are the most important to it, it can never transcend 
nationality; and the few theoreticians achieve nothing with all their 
fine “principles” because they simply allow these contradictory 
interests —like everything else—to continue to exist and can do 
nothing but talk. But the proletarians in all countries have one and 
the same interest, one and the same enemy, and one and the same 
struggle. The great mass of proletarians are, by their very nature, 
free from national prejudices and their whole disposition and 
movement is essentially humanitarian, anti-nationalist. Only the 
proletarians can destroy nationality, only the awakening proletariat 
can bring about fraternisation between the different nations. 

The following facts will confirm everything I have just said. 

On August 10, 1845, a similar festival was held in London to 
celebrate a triple anniversary —that of the revolution of 1792, the 
proclamation of the Constitution of 1793, and the founding of the 
“Democratic Association” by the most radical wing of the English 
movement of 1838-39.’ 

This most radical wing consisted of Chartists, proletarians as might 
be expected, but people who clearly grasped the aim of the Chartist 
movement and strove to speed it up. While the great mass of the 
Chartists was still concerned at that time only with the transfer of state 
power to the working class, and few had the time to reflect on the use 
of this power, the members of this Association, which played an 
important role in the agitation of that time, were unanimous in 
this: —they were first of all republicans, and moreover, republicans 

who put forward as their creed the Constitution of 93, rejected all 
ties with the bourgeoisie, even with the petty bourgeoisie, and 
defended the principle that the oppressed have the right to use the 
same means against their oppressors as the latter use against them. 
But this was not all; they were not only republicans but Communists, 
and irreligious Communists at that. The Association’s collapse 
followed that of the revolutionary agitation of 1838-39; but its 
effectiveness was not wasted and it greatly contributed to stimulating 
the energy of the Chartist movement and to developing its latent 
communist elements. Communist as well as cosmopolitan? principles 
were already voiced at this festival of August 10; social as well as 
political equality were demanded and a toast to the democrats of all 
nations was taken up with enthusiasm. 

Efforts to bring together the radicals of different nations had 
already been made earlier in London. These attempts failed, partly 
because of divisions among the English democrats and the foreign- 
ers’ ignorance of them, partly because of differences of principle 
between the party leaders of different nations. The obstacle to all 
unification, due to difference of nationality, is so great that even 
foreigners who had lived in London for years, no matter how much 
they sympathised with English democracy, knew little or nothing 
about the movement going on before their eyes, or of the real state of 
affairs, confused the radical bourgeois with the radical proletarians 
and wished to bring the most confirmed enemies together at the 
same meeting. The English were led to similar mistakes, partly 
because of this and partly because of national mistrust, mistakes all 
the more easily made since the success of such a discussion inevitably 
depended on the greater or lesser agreement amongst a few top 
committee members who were rarely personally acquainted. These 
individuals had been most unfortunately selected on the previous 
occasions and consequently the matter had soon lapsed again. But 
the need for such fraternisation was too pressing. Every attempt that 
failed acted as a spur to new efforts. When some of the democratic 
spokesmen in London grew weary of the matter others took their 
places. Last August new approaches were made, which this time were 
not fruitless,9 and a celebration on September 22, organised by other 
people, was used tc proclaim publicly the alliance of democrats of all 
nations living in London. 

Enghshmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Poles and 
Swiss came together at this meeting. Hungary and Turkey, too, were 
represented by one-man contingents. The three greatest nations of 
civilised Europe—the English, German and French — provided the 
speakers and were very worthily represented. The Chairman was, of 

course, an Englishman, Thomas Cooper “the Chartist’” who served 
nearly two years in prison for his part in the insurrection of 1842 '° 
and while in gaol wrote an epic poem? in the style of Childe Harold 
which is highly praised by the English critics. The main English 
speaker of the evening was George Julian Harney, co-editor of The 
Northern Star for the past two years. The Northern Star is the Chartist 
paper established in 1837 by O’Connor, which has become in every 
way one of the best journals in Europe since it has been under the 
joint editorship of J. Hobson and Harney. I only know a few small 
Paris workers’ papers such as the Union which can compare with it. 
Harney himself is a true proletarian who has been in the movement 
since his youth, one of the chief members of the Democratic 
Association of 1838-39 already mentioned (he presided at the 
Festival of August 10), and, with Hobson, undoubtedly one of the 
best English writers, a fact which I hope to demonstrate to the 
Germans some day. Harney is perfectly clear about the aim of the 
European movement and completely a la hauteur des principes» 
although he knows nothing about the German theories of true 
socialism. The main credit for the organisation of this cosmopolitan 
festival was his; he was tireless in bringing the various nationalities 
together, in removing misunderstandings and in overcoming 
personal differences. 

The toast proposed by Harney was: 

“The solemn memory of the honest and virtuous French Republicans of 1792: 

may that equality which they desired, and for which they lived, laboured, and died, 
have a speedy resurrection in France, and extend its reign throughout Europe.” 

Harney, who was received with cheers, again and again 
renewed, said: 

“There was a time, [Mr. Chairman,] when the holding of such a celebration as 
this would have subjected the parties assembled not only to the scorn, the sneers, the 
abuse, and the persecution of the. privileged orders, but also to the violence of the 
ignorant and misguided people, who were led by their rulers and priests to regard the 
French Revolution as something terrible and hellish, to be looked back upon with 

. horror, and spoken of with execration. [Hear, hear.} Most present will remember that 
not long ago, whenever a demand was made in this country for the repeal of any bad 
law, or the enactment of any good one, forthwith the howl of ‘Jacobinism!’ was raised 
[by the opponents of all progress]. Whether it was proposed to reform the Parliament, 
reduce taxation, educate the people, or do anything else that at all savoured of 
progress, the ‘French Revolution’, ‘Reign of Terror’, and all the rest of the raw-head 
and bloody-bones phantasmagoria were sure to be brought out and duly exhibited to 
frighten the big babies in breeches, who as yet had not learned to think for themselves. 

(Laughter and cheers.) That time is past; still, I question whether we have yet learned 
to read aright the history of that great revolution. It would be very easy for me in 
responding to this toast to mouth a few clap-trap sentiments about liberty, equality, 
the rights of man, the coalition of the European kings, and the doings of Pitt and 
Brunswick. I might dilate on all these topics, and possibly might win applause for what 
would probably pass muster as an exceedingly liberal speech. I might do all this, and 
yet very conveniently for myself shirk the grand question. The grand question, it 
appears to me, the solution of which the French Revolution had for its mission, was 
the destruction of inequality, and the establishment of institutions which should 
guarantee to the French people that happiness which the masses are, and ever have 
been strangers to. [Cheers.] Now, tried by this test, we have comparatively little 
difficulty in arriving at a fair estimate of the men who figured on the stage of the 
revolution. Take Lafayette, for instance, as a specimen of the Constitutionalists; and 
he, perhaps, is the most honest and best man of the whole party. Few men have 
enjoyed more popularity than Lafayette. In his youth we find him leaving his country, 
and generously embarking in the American struggle against English tyranny. The 
great work of American liberation being accomplished, he returned to France, and 
shortly afterwards we find him one of the foremost men in the revolution which now 
commenced in his own country. Again, in his old age, we see him the most popular 
man in France, called, after the ‘three days’,!! to the veritable dictatorship, and 
unmaking and making kings with a single word. Lafayette enjoyed, throughout 
Europe and America, a greater popularity than perhaps any other man of his time; 
and that popularity he would have deserved, if his conduct had been consistent with 
his first acts in the revolution. But Lafayette was never the friend of equality. (Hear, 
hear.) True, at the outset, he gave up his feudal privileges, and renounced his 
title — and thus far he did well. Placed at the head of the popular force, the idol of the 
middle class, and commanding the affection of even the working class, he was for a 
time regarded as the champion of the revolution. But he halted when he should have 
advanced. The working men soon found out that all that the destruction of the Bastille 
and the abolition of feudal privileges had accomplished, was the curbing of the power 
of the king and the aristocracy, and increasing the power of the middle class. But the 
people were not content with this— they demanded liberty and rights for themselves 
(cheers)— they wanted what we want—a veritable equality. (Loud cheers.) When 
Lafayette saw this, he turned Conservative, and was a revolutionist no longer. It was 
he who proposed the adoption of martial law, to authorise the shooting and sabring of 
the people, in the event of any tumult, at a time, too, when the people were suffering 
under absolute famine; and under this martial law, Lafayette himself superintended 
the butchery of the people when [they] assembled in the Champ de Mars, on the 17th 
of July, 1791, to petition the Assembly against the reinvestiture of the king with 
supreme power, after his shameful flight to Varennes. Subsequently Lafayette dared 
to menace Paris with his sword, and proposed to shut up the public clubs by armed 
violence. After the 10th of August’? he strove to excite the soldiers under his 
command to march against Paris, but they, better patriots than he was, refused, and he. 
then fled, and renounced the revolution. Yet Lafayette was perhaps the best man of all 
the Constitutionalists, but neither he nor his party come within the compass of our 
toast, for they were not even republicans in name. They professed to recognise the 
sovereignty of the people, at the same time that they divided the citizens into active 
and inactive, confining to the payers of direct taxes, whom they called active citizens, 
the right of the suffrage. In short, Lafayette and the Constitutionalists were mere 
Whigs, but little, if anything, better than the men who humbugged us with the Reform 

Bill. (Cheers.) Next come the Girondists; and this is the party generally upheld as the 
‘honest and virtuous republicans’, but I must differ with those who hold that opinion. 
It is impossible to refuse them the tribute of our admiration for their talents; the 
eloquence which distinguished the leaders of this party, accompanied in some 
instances by stern integrity, as in the case of Roland; by heroic devotion, as in the case 
of Madame Roland; and by fiery enthusiasm, as in the case of Barbaroux [....] And we 
cannot, at least I speak for myself — 1 cannot read of the shocking and untimely end of 
a Madame Roland, or the philosopher Condorcet, without intense emotion. Still the 
Girondists were not the men to whom the people could look to rescue them from 
social slavery. That there were good men amongst the Girondists, cannot be 
doubted —that they were honest to their own convictions, may be admitted. That 
many of them were ignoxant rather than guilty, may be charitably believed, though to 
believe this we must believe it only of those who perished; for were we to judge of the 
party by those who survived what is commonly called the ‘reign of terror’, we should 
be forced to the conclusion that a baser gang never existed. These survivors of that 
party aided in destroying the constitution of ’93, established the aristocratical 
constitution of 95, conspired with the other aristocratic factions to exterminate the 
real Republicans, and finally helped to place France under the tyranny of the military 
usurper Napoleon. (Hear, hear.) The eloquence of the Girondists has been highly 
lauded; but we stern and uncompromising Democrats cannot consent to admire them 
simply because they were eloquent. Indeed, if we were to do so, we should award the 
highest honours to the corrupt and aristocratical Mirabeau. When the people, rising 
for liberty, bursting the shackles of fourteen hundred years’ slavery, abandoned their 
homes to combat against the domestic conspirator, and the foreign invader, they 
required something more than the eloquent speeches and fine woven theories of the 
Girondists to sustain them. ‘Bread, steel, and equality’, was the demand of the people. 
(Cheers.) Bread for their famishing families, steel with which to beat back the cohorts 
of the surrounding despots, and equality as the end of their labours and the reward of 
their sacrifices. (Great cheering.) The Girondists, however, regarded the people, to 
quote the words of Thomas Carlyle, as mere ‘explosive masses to blow up bastilles 
with’ *— to be used as tools and treated as slaves. They hesitated between Royalism and 
Democracy, vainly hoping to cheat eternal justice by a compromise.... They 
fell, and their fall was merited. The men of energy trampled them down — the people 
swept them away. Of the several sections of the party of the Mountain, I shall only say 
that I find none of them but Robespierre and his friends worthy of any 
commendation. (Great cheering.) The greater number of the Mountainists were 
brigands, who, only anxious to obtain for themselves the spoils of the Revolution, 
cared nothing for the people by whose toil, suffering, and courage the revolution had 
been achieved. These desperadoes, using the language of the friends of equality, and 
for a time siding with them against the Constitutionalists and the Girondists, so soon as 
they had acquired power, exhibited themselves in their true characters, and 
henceforth stood the avowed and deadly enemies of equality. By this faction 
Robespierre was overthrown and assassinated, and Saint-Just, Couthon, and all the 
leading friends of that incorruptible legislator were doomed to death. Not content 
with destroying the friends of equality, the assassins loaded their names with the most 
infamous calumnies, hesitating not to charge upon their victims the very crimes which 
they themselves had committed. I know it is unfashionable> as yet to regard 
Robespierre in any other light than as a monster [hear, hear]: but I believe the day is 
coming when a very different view will be taken of the character of that extraordinary 

man. [Great cheering.] I would not deify Robespierre; I do not hold him up as having 
been all-perfect; but to me he appears to have been one of the very few leading charac- 
ters of the Revolution who saw what were the means necessary to adopt to extirpate 
political and social wrong. I have no time to comment on the characters of the 
indomitable Marat, and that magnificent embodiment of republican chivalry St. Just. 
Nor have I time to speak of the excellent legislative measures that characterised the 
energetic rule of Robespierre. I have said the day will come when justice will be done 
to his name. (Cheers.) ... But, to me, the best proof of the real character of 
Robespierre, is to be found in the universal regret felt for his loss by the honest 
democrats who survived him—by those too amongst them, who, mistaking his 
intentions, had been seduced into favouring his destruction, but who, when too late, 
bitterly rued their folly. Babeuf was one of these, the originator of the famous 
conspiracy known by his name. That conspiracy had for its object the establishment of 
a veritable republic, in which the selfishness of individualism should be known no 
more— (cheers); in which, private property and money, the foundation and root of all wrong 
and evil, should cease to be— (cheers); and in which the happiness of all should be based 
upon the common labour and equal enjoyments of all. (Great cheering.) These glorious 
men pursued their glorious object to the death. Babeuf and Darthé sealed their belief 
with their blood, and Buonarroti, through years of imprisonment, penury and old 
age, persevered to the last in his advocacy of the great principles which we this night 
dare to vindicate. Nor should I omit mention of those heroic deputies Romme, 
Soubrany, Duroy, Duquesnoy and their compatriots, who, condemned to death by the 
traitor aristocrats of the Convention, heroically slew themselves in front of, and in 
contempt of their assassins, performing this self-tragedy with a single blade which they 
passed from hand to hand. So much for the first part of our toast. The second part 
demands but a few words from me, as it will be best spoken by the French patriots who 
are present. That the principles of equality will have a glorious resurrection, I cannot 
doubt; indeed, that resurrection they have already had, not merely in the shape of 
Republicanism, but Communism, for communist societies, I believe, cover France at 
the present day; but that I leave to my friend Dr. Fontaine and his fellow-countrymen 
to speak of. I rejoice much that those worthy patriots are here. They will witness 
tonight proofs of the absurdity of the tirades uttered against the English people by the 
war-party of France.!* (Cheers.) We repudiate these national antipathies. We loathe 
and scorn those barbarous clap-traps, ‘natural enemies’, ‘hereditary foe’? and 
‘national glory’. (Loud cheers.) We denounce all wars, except those into which nations 
may be forced against domestic oppressors or hostile invaders. (Applause). More than 
that, we repudiate the word ‘foreigner’— it shall exist not in our democratic vocabulary. (Great 
cheering.) We may belong to the English, or French, or Italian, or German section 
of the European family, but Young Europe is our common designation, and under its 
banner we march against tyranny and inequality.” (Long, enthusiastic applause.) 

After a German Communist> had sung the Marseillaise, Wilhelm 
Weitling proposed the second toast: 
“Young Europe. Repudiating the jealousies and national antipathies of the past, 

may the Democrats of all nations unite in a fraternal phalanx for the destruction of 
tyranny, and the universal triumph of equality.” 

Weitling, who was received with great enthusiasm, read the 
following speech, since he does not speak fluent English: 

“Friends! This meeting is a testimony of that common feeling which warms every 
man’s breast, the feeling of universal brotherhood. Yes! Though we are educated to 
differ one from the other in the use of sounds as the natural means to express and 
communicate this inner feeling to each other, though the exchange of this feeling is 
hindered by the differences of language, though thousands of prejudices are united 
and directed by our common adversaries rather to oppose than to promote a better 
understanding, an universal brotherhood; yet, notwithstanding all these obstacles, 
that strong, charitable, and salutary feeling cannot be extinguished. (Cheers.) That 
feeling that attracts the sufferer to his fellow-sufferer, the struggler for a better state 
of things to his fellow-struggler. (Cheers.) Those also were our fellow-strugglers whose 
revolution we this night commemorate; they also were animated by the same 
sympathies which bring us together, and which possibly may lead us to a similar, and 
let me hope, a more successful struggle. (Loud cheers.) In times of movement, when 
the privileges of our native adversaries run great risk, they cunningly try to lead our 
prejudices over the frontiers of our national fatherland, representing to us that the 
people there are opposed to our common interest. What a trick! What a fraud! But, 
reflecting coolly on the matter, we know very well that our nearest enemies are 
amongst ourselves in the midst of us. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) It is not the exterior 
enemy we have to fear; that poor enemy is dealt with like us; like us he is compelled to 
work for thousands of good-for-nothing fellows; like us he takes up arms against any 
human society because he is forced to do so by hunger, by law, or excited by his 
passions, nourished by ignorance [...]. National rulers represent our brethren as cruel 
and rapacious; but who are more rapacious than they who govern us to be instructed 
in the art of war, who for their own privileges excite and conduct us to war? (Cheers.) 
Is it really our common interest that necessitates war? Is it the interest of sheep to be 
led by wolves to fight against sheep likewise led by wolves? (Loud cheers.) They are 
themselves our most rapacious enemies; they have taken from us all that is ours, to 
dissipate it in pleasures and debauchery. (Applause.) They take from us what is ours, 
since all they use is produced by us and ought to pertain to those who produce it, and 
to their wives and children, their aged and their sick. (Loud cheers.) But see how by 
their cunning manoeuvres all is stolen from us, and accumulated for a crew of idle 
consumers. (Cheers.) Is it possible then to be more robbed by a foreign enemy than by 
our own home enemies? Is it possible then that the people can be more murdered by 
them than by our cruel money-men, who rob us by their stock-jobbing, money dealing 
and speculating; by their currency and bankruptcy, by their monopolies, church and 
land rents, who by all these means rob us of the necessaries of life, and cause the death 
of millions of our working fellow brethren, to whom they leave not even potatoes 
enough to live upon. (Great cheering.) Is it not, therefore, clear enough that those 
who are all by money and nothing without it, are really the enemies of the working 
people in all countries, and that there are amongst men no other enemies of the 
human race than the enemies of the labouring and working people. (Cheers.) Is it 
possible then that we could be more stolen from, and murdered in a time of political 
war, than we are now, in a so-called state of peace? National prejudices, bloodshed, 
and robberies are then encouraged by us only for the sake of military glory! What has 
our interest to gain from such stupid glory? (Cheers.) What in fact have we to do with 
it, when our interest and our better feelings are opposed to it? (Cheers.) Must we not 
at all times pay the costs? (Applause.) Must we not work and bleed for it? (Renewed 
applause.) What interest can we have in all such bloodshed and land robberies, except 
profiting by such occasions for turning around against the robbery and mur- 
der — breeding aristocracy in all nations? (Enthusiastic cheering.) It is only this 
aristocracy — always this aristocracy — that systematically robs and murders. The poor 
people, led by them, are but their forced and ignorant instruments chosen from 

amongst every nation —those the most filled with national prejudices, those wishing 
to see all nations overpowered by their own nation. But bring them here into this 
meeting, and they will understand each other, and shake hands with each othev.... If 
before a battle the advocates of liberty and love were permitted to address the ranks of 
their brethren, there would be no slaughter; on the contrary, there would be a 
friendly meeting like ours. O! could we but have in a battle-field such a meeting, we 
should have soon done with all those blood and marrow sucking interests who now 
oppress and plunder us! (Great cheering.) Such, friends, are the sentiments of that 
universal feeling whose warmth, concentrated in the focus of universal brotherhood, 
kindles a fire of enthusiasm which will soon entirely melt away the hindering 
ice-mountains of prejudices which have too long kept brethren asunder.” (Mr. 
Weitling resumed his seat amid long continued cheering.) 

Dr. Berrier-Fontaine, an old Republican who during the first 
years of bourgeois rule played a role in the Société des droits de l’ homme 
in Paris, was involved in the trial of April 1834,'4 escaped with the rest 
of the accused from Sainte Pélagie in 1835 (see Louis Blanc’s 
Geschichte der 10 Jahre’), and later progressed with the further 
development of the revolutionary party in France and had friendly 
contact with Pére Cabet, rose to speak after Weitling. He was greeted 
with stormy applause and said: 

“Citizens! My speech must be necessarily brief, as 1 cannot speak very good 
English. It gives me pleasure I cannot express to find the English Democrats meeting 
to commemorate the French Republic. I respond most heartily to the noble sentiments 
of Mr. Julian Harney. I assure you that the French people do not look upon the 
English people as their enemies. If some of the French journalists write against the 
English Government, they do not write against the English people. The Government 
of England is hateful throughout Europe, because it is the government of the English 
aristocracy, and not the English people. (Cheers.) The French Democrats, so far from 
being the enemies of the English people, really desire to fraternise with them. (Loud 
cheers.) The Republicans of France did not fight for France only, but for all mankind; 
they wished to establish equality, and extend its blessings throughout the world. (Great 
applause.) They regarded ail mankind as brethren, and warred only against the 
aristocracies of other nations. (Cheers.) I can assure you, citizens, the principles of 
equality have sprung into renewed life. Communism is advancing with giant strides 
throughout France. Communist associations are extending all over that country, and I 
hope that we shall soon see a grand confederation of the Citizen Democrats of all 
nations, to make Republican Communism triumphant through the whole length and 
breadth of Europe.” (Dr. Fontaine resumed his seat amidst long-protracted cheers.) 

After the toast to Young Europe had been taken with “three 
roof and rafter-ringing shouts” and “one cheer more”, further 
toasts were proposed to Thomas Paine, to the fallen Democrats of all 
countries, and to those of England, Scotland and Ireland, to the 
deported Chartists Frost, Williams, Jones and Ellis, to O’Connor, 
Duncombe and the other propagandists of the Charter and finally 
three cheers for The Northern Star. Democratic songs in all languages 

were sung (I can only find no mention of German songs), and the 
Festival was brought to an end in the most fraternal atmosphere. 
Here was a meeting of more than a thousand democrats of nearly 
all the European nations who had united to celebrate an event 
seemingly completely alien to communism—the foundation of the 
French Republic. No special arrangements had been made to attract 
a particular kind of audience; there was nothing to indicate that 
anything would be expressed other than what the London Chartists 
understood by democracy. We can therefore certainly assume that 
the majority of the meeting represented the mass of the London 
Chartist proletarians fairly well. And this meeting accepted com- 
munist principles, the word communism itself, with unanimous 
enthusiasm. The Chartist meeting was a communist festival and, as 
the English themselves admit, “the kind of enthusiasm which 
prevailed that evening has not been seen in London for years”. 

Am I right when I say that democracy nowadays is communism?