of the Central Authority of the Communist League
of 15 September 1850

|[1] (Meeting of the Central Authority of 15 Sept. 1850.

Present: Marx, Engels, Schramm, Pfaender, Bauer, Eccarius, Schapper,
Willich, Lehmann.

Fraenkel is excused.

The minutes of the last meeting are not present, as this is an extraordinary meeting, and will therefore not be read.

Marx: The Friday meeting could not take place because of a collision with the commission meeting of the
Society. Since Willich has called a circle meeting, the validity of which I am not enquiring into, the meeting must take place today.

I move the following motion, divided into three articles:

1. The Central Authority is transferred from London to Cologne and passes to the circle authority there as soon as today’s meeting of the Central Authority is closed. This resolution will be communicated to the League members in Paris, Belgium, and Switzerland. The new Central Authority will itself announce it to Germany.

Motive: I was against Schapper’s motion for a general German circle authority in Cologne so as not to disturb the unity of the central power. This falls away in our motion. In addition there are a number of new reasons. The minority of the Central Authority is in open rebellion against the majority, both at the vote of censure of the last meeting, and at the general meeting now called by the circle, and in the Society, and among the refugees. Hence the Central Authority here is impossible. The unity of the Central Authority ||[2]] can no longer be maintained, it would have to split and two Leagues would be created. But since the interest of the party takes precedence, I propose this solution.

2) The existing statutes of the League are annulled. The new Central Authority is instructed to draw up new statutes.

Motive: The 1847 Congress statutes were altered in 1848 by the London Central Authority. The circumstances of the time have now changed again. The last London statutes weakened the principal articles of the statutes. Both sets of statutes are in force here or there, in some places none at all or entirely arbitrary ones are in force; hence complete anarchy in the League. In addition, the last statutes have been made public and can therefore no longer serve. The effect of my motion, then, is that real statutes be set in place of statute-lessness.

3) Two circles are formed in London, which stand in absolutely no relation to

577

Minutes of the Meeting of the Central Authority of the Communist League, 15 Sept. 1850

one another and have only the bond that they are in the League and correspond with the same Central Authority.

Motive: Precisely for the sake of the unity of the League it is necessary that two circles be founded here. Apart from personal antagonisms, differences of principle have also emerged, even in the Society. Precisely in the last debate 5 about the question “the position of the German proletariat in the next revolution”, members of the minority of the Central Authority have expressed views that directly contradict the last circular but one, indeed the Manifesto. In place of the universal outlook of the Manifesto, the German national one has been adopted, and the national feeling of the German artisans has been flattered. Instead of the materialist outlook of the Manifesto, the idealist one has been emphasised. Instead of the real conditions, the will has been emphasised as the main thing in the revolution. Whereas we tell the workers: You will have to go through 15, 20, 50 years of civil war in order to change the conditions ||[3]] and to make yourselves fit for rule, it has been said instead: We must immediately come to power or we can lie down to sleep. Just as the word “people” was used by the democrats, the word “proletariat” has now been used as a mere phrase. To carry through this phrase one would have to declare all petty bourgeois proletarians, hence represent de facto the petty bourgeois and not the proletarians. In place of the real revolutionary development one would have to put the phrase of revolution. This debate has finally proven what differences of principle formed the background of the personal quarrels, and now it is time to intervene. Precisely these antagonisms have been taken up as the battle cry of the two factions, and various League members have designated the defenders of the Manifesto as reactionaries, and have sought thereby to make them unpopular, which, however, is completely a matter of indifference to them, since they do not seek popularity. The majority would accordingly have the right to dissolve the London circle and to expel the members of the minority as being in contradiction with the principles of the League. I do not put this motion, because it would lead to useless brawl and because these people, according to their convictions, are still communists, even though the views now expressed by them are anti-communist and can at best be called social-democratic. It is self-evident, however, that it would be purely harmful waste of time if we remained together. Schapper has often spoken of separation; very well, I am serious about separation. I believe I have found the way in which we may separate without shattering the party.

I declare that, in my view, I desire at most 12 people in our circle, as few as possible, and happily leave the whole swarms to the minority. If this proposal is adopted, then of course we cannot [4] remain in the Society; I and the majority will leave the Great Windmill Street Society. Finally, it is not a matter of a hostile relation between the two factions, but on the contrary of abolishing the tension and hence all relations. In the League and in the party we remain together, but in a relation that is merely harmful we do not remain.

Schapper: Just as in France the proletariat separates itself from the Montagne and the press, so here, the people who represent the party principles separate themselves from those who are organising in the

578

Minutes of the Meeting of the Central Authority of the Communist League, 15 Sept. 1850

proletariat. I am for the transfer of the Central Authority, also for alteration of the statutes. The Cologne people know the conditions in Germany. I also believe that the new revolution will produce people who will lead themselves, better than all the people who had a name in 1848. As regards the divisions of principle, Eccarius proposed the question that gave rise to this debate. I expressed the view challenged here, because I am generally enthusiastic about this matter. It is a question of whether at the outset we ourselves do the chopping off of heads or whether we are beheaded. In France the workers will get their turn, and in the same way in Germany. Were that not the case, I would certainly lie down to sleep, and then I could have a different material position. If we do get our turn, we can take such measures as will secure power for the proletariat. I am fanatical for this view. The Central Authority, however, wanted the opposite. Well, if you want nothing more to do with us, then let us separate now. In the next revolution I shall certainly be guillotined, but I shall go to Germany. But if you want to form two circles, very well, then the League ceases to exist, and then we shall meet again in Germany and perhaps we can then go together again. I am ||[5]| a personal friend of Marx, but if you want the separation, well then, we go alone and you go alone. But then two Leagues should be founded, one for those who work with the pen, the other for those who work otherwise. I am not of the opinion that the bourgeoisie in Germany will come to power, and I am a fanatical enthusiast in this respect; were I not, I would not give a fig for the whole business. But two circles here in London, two societies, two refugee committees, then we would rather have two Leagues as well and complete separation.

Marx. Schapper has misunderstood my motion. As soon as the motion is adopted, we separate, the two circles separate, and the persons stand in no relation to one another. They are, however, in the same League and under the same authority. You are even to retain the great mass of League members. As for personal sacrifices, I have made as many as anybody, but for the class, not for individuals. As far as enthusiasm goes, it takes little enthusiasm to belong to a party that one believes is coming into government. I have always defied the momentary opinion of the proletariat. We devote ourselves to a party which, for its own good, precisely cannot yet come to power. If the proletariat were to come to power, it would not directly take proletarian but petty-bourgeois measures. Our party can only come into government when conditions allow its views to be carried through. Louis Blanc provides the best example of what one achieves when one comes to power too early. In France, moreover, it is not the proletarians alone who come to power, but together with them the peasants and petty bourgeois, and they will have to carry through not their measures but those of the latter. The Paris Commune proves that one does not need to be in the government ||[6]| to carry something through. Besides, why does none of the other members of the minority, especially Citizen Willich, speak out, all of whom at that time unanimously approved the circular? We cannot split the League and do not want to split it, but only to split the London circle into two circles.

579

Minutes of the Meeting of the Central Authority of the Communist League, 15 Sept. 1850

Eccarius. I raised the question and indeed had the intention of bringing the matter up for discussion. As regards Schapper’s conception, I have explained in the Society why I consider it an illusion and why I do not believe that our party can immediately come to power in the next revolution. Our party will then be more important in the clubs than in the government.

Citizen Lehmann leaves without saying a word.

Likewise Citizen Willich.

Art. 1 carried by all; Schapper does not vote.

” 2 carried by all; Schapper likewise.

” 3 carried likewise; Schapper likewise.

Schapper declares his protest against all of us. We are now completely separated. I have acquaintances and friends in Cologne who will follow me more than you.

Marx: We have transacted our business in accordance with the statutes, and the resolutions of the Central Authority are valid.

After the reading of the minutes, Marx and Schapper declare that they have not written to Cologne about this matter.

Schapper is asked if he has any objection to the minutes. He declares that he has no objection, as he considers any objection unnecessary.

Eccarius moves that the minutes be signed by all. Carried.

Schapper declares that he will not sign them.

Done at London, 15 September 1850.

Read, approved, and signed
sgd. K. Marx, President of the
Central Authority sgd. C. Schramm
F. Engels, Secretary " J.G. Eccarius
Henry Bauer " C. Pfaender