Dear Cafiero,

I have received your letter of the 12th, and hope you have received mine addressed to Naples some days earlier, containing the rules of the Association, the resolutions of the Geneva and Brussels Congresses, the 3rd edition of the address on the civil war in France, those on the Franco-German war, the inaugural one of the Association of 1864, etc. etc. These documents will certainly suffice to explain to you what the rules and principles of our society were and the means at the disposal of the General Council to act in the name and on behalf of the society itself. I have also received *La Plebe* of Lodi, the bulletin on Caporusso, and the issue of *Roma del Popolo* containing Mazzini’s attack upon us. As for the facts relating to Caporusso published and then cited in your letter, they would suffice to declare him incapable of doing us any harm in the future. Were he to dare present himself again to the public as a representative of the working classes, the affair of the 300 lire would be made public and that would destroy the last vestiges of his influence. We are glad to know that there exists there nothing of the Bakuninist sect. We had been made to believe the contrary because the Swiss Bakuninists always claimed that this was so. They repeated it constantly and since we received no reply to our letters to Naples we believed them. We had no other address in Naples besides that of Caporusso, to whom at least 3 letters were written by our French secretary E. Dupont in the presence of Marx; but Caporusso must have suppressed them. If you think it worthwhile, question Caporusso about these letters. Moreover, no letters from Naples were ever received in reply, and if those that were sent had been addressed, as you assert, directly to the Council, it is all too clear that between the Italian, French and English police none would have reached us. You are quite right to rest at the moment of reflection (in which I recognise with pleasure the very voice of old Hegel, to whom we too owe so much) and to say that the Association cannot be satisfied in its action by the mere frank assertion of Article 1 of the Rules, a principle which, unless it is developed, will remain a mere negation, the negation of the right of the aristocratic and bourgeois classes to “exploiter” the proletariat. In truth we must go much further, we must develop the positive side of the question, how the emancipation of the proletariat is to be brought about, and thus the discussion of differing opinions becomes not only inevitable but necessary. As I say, such discussion proceeds constantly not only within the Association but also in the General Council where there are Communists, Proudhonists, Owenists, Chartists and Bakuninists, etc. etc. The greatest difficulty is to bring them all together and to ensure that differences of opinion on such matters do not disturb the solidarity and stability of the Association. And here we have always been fortunate, with the sole exception of the Swiss Bakuninists who, with genuine sectarian fury, always dared either directly to impose their programme on the Association, or indirectly by forming a special international society with its own General Council, its own congress, within the bosom of the great International. When they attempted this under the form of the *Alliance de la démocratie socialiste* de Genève, the Council replied to them with what follows (22 December ’68). After this document (the Programme and Rules of the Alliance) the said Alliance is entirely merged into the International, while in fact it is entirely outside this Association; alongside the General Council of the International elected by the successive congresses of Geneva, Lausanne and Brussels, there will be, according to the initiating regulations (of the Alliance), another General Council with its seat in Geneva which has appointed itself. Alongside the local groups of the International, there will be local groups of the alliance which, by means of their national bureaux operating outside the national bureaux of the International, will request from the central bureau of the alliance admission into the International. Thus the Central Committee of the Alliance arrogates to itself the right of admission into the International. Finally, the General Congress of the International Working Men’s Association will find its counterpart (*doublure*) in the General Congress of the alliance, for, says the initiating regulation, at the annual workers’ congress the delegation of the Alliance of Socialist Democracy, as a branch of the International Working Men’s Association, will hold its public sessions in a separate room.

[Considering]

That a second international body functioning inside and outside the International Working Men’s Association would be the most infallible means to disorganise it. That any other group of individuals residing in any locality whatsoever would have the right to imitate the initiating group (of the Alliance) of Geneva, on more or less ostensible pretexts, to add to the International Working Men’s Association other international associations with special missions. That in this way the International Working Men’s Association would soon become the plaything of intriguers of all nationalities and of all parties. That, on the other hand, the Rules of the International Working Men’s Association do not admit within its framework these local branches of national branches (See Article 6 of the Rules). That the Sections of the International Working Men’s Association are forbidden to adopt for themselves Rules or administrative rules contrary to the rules and administrative rules of the International Working Men’s Association (See Article 12 of the Administrative Rules). That the question has been prejudiced by the resolutions against the League of Peace, voted unanimously at the Brussels Congress (The League had invited the International to join another, and this was our reply to these bourgeois). That in these resolutions the Congress declares that the League of Peace had no reason to exist since, after its recent declarations, its aim and its principles were identical with those of the International Working Men’s Association; that several members of the initiating group of the Alliance, in their capacity as delegates to the Brussels Congress, voted on these resolutions. The General Council of the International Working Men’s Association has unanimously resolved: 1. All the articles of the Rules of the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy, laying down its relations with the International Working Men’s Association, are held to be null and void. 2. The International Alliance of Socialist Democracy is not admitted at all as a branch of the International Working Men’s Association.

On this point, namely, that the International cannot permit another sectarian International to exist with its own organisation, I believe there can be no two opinions. There is not the slightest doubt that all future congresses and general councils will oppose efforts at the organisation of such intrigues in our very midst, and it would be well if our friends in Naples, at least those who have connections with Geneva, understood this. The Bakuninists are a very tiny minority in the Association and are the only ones who have at all times sought to cause dissension. I speak mainly of the Swiss, for with the others we have had little or nothing to do. We have always allowed them to hold their principles, to propagate them in the best way they thought fit, as long as they renounced any attempt to undermine the Association or to impose their programme on us; and so they will see that the workers of Europe will not make themselves the instruments of a small sect. As for their theoretical views, the General Council wrote to the Alliance on 9 March 1869, citing Article 1 of the Rules. As the sections of the working classes in different countries find themselves placed in different conditions of development, it necessarily follows that their theoretical opinions, which reflect the real movement, are equally divergent. However, the community of action initiated by the International Working Men’s Association, the exchange of ideas facilitated by the publicity of the organs of the various national sections, and finally the direct discussions at the congresses, will not fail gradually to engender a common theoretical programme. Thus it would be outside the functions of the General Council to subject the programme of the Alliance to a critical examination. We do not at all need to enquire whether it is or is not an adequate expression of the proletarian movement. For us it is merely a matter of knowing whether it contains anything contrary to the general tendency of our association, i.e., the complete emancipation of the working classes. I have therefore cited this to you at length to prove to you how unfounded any accusation against the General Council would be, namely that it oversteps the limit of Article 1 of the Rules. In its official functions as regards admission or rejection of sections, it certainly cannot act thus; but as to the search for and discussion of theoretical points, the Council desires nothing more ardently than this. From such discussions the Council hopes to arrive at a general theoretical programme acceptable to the European proletariat. At all our theoretical congresses, discussions have long occupied the greater part of the time; but it must be noted that in these theoretical discussions Bakunin and his friends have taken very little part. The General Council, even in its official documents, has gone far beyond Article 1. Read all the addresses sent to you, and in particular No. 3 of that on the civil war in France, in which we declare ourselves in favour of communism, a thing which no doubt the many Proudhonists of the Assembly will have been terribly displeased about. We were able to do this because we were led to it by the capitalist calumniators of the Paris Commune. – There does not exist any document issued by the General Council that goes beyond Article 1. But the Council can go beyond the official programme of the Association only insofar as circumstances can justify it: it cannot give any section the right to say: You have violated our rules; you officially proclaim things that are not in the rules of the Association. You say that our friends in Naples are not content with mere abstraction, they want something concrete, they are content with nothing less than equality, social order instead of disorder. Well, we are ready to do more. There is not a single man in the General Council who is not for the total abolition of social classes, and there is not a single document of the General Council that is not in harmony with this. We must rid ourselves of rural landowners and capitalists, substituting and furthering the associated classes of workers, agricultural and industrial, and all the means of production—land, instruments, machines, raw materials, and the means of subsistence during the time necessary for production. Thus inequality must cease. And to bring this about we need the political supremacy of the proletariat. I think that is concrete enough for the friends in Naples. At the same time, while we, like others, do our part in the work of the bad ground, one should not demand that the General Council issue inflammatory proclamations at brief intervals, with which a good part of our members would be pleased, while the other part would certainly be displeased. But if a real conjuncture arises, then we show our strength, as happened with the address on the civil war, and that is proved by that on France.

On the religious question we cannot speak of it officially, except where the priests provoke us, but you will feel the spirit of atheism in all our publications, and furthermore we admit no society that has the slightest hint of religious allusion in its statutes. Many sought to join, but they were all invariably rejected. If our friends in Naples were to form themselves into a society of Atheists and were to admit only Atheists, what would ever become of their propaganda in a city where, as you yourself say, not only is God omnipotent but also San Gennaro, who must be handled delicately. I enclose a letter for C. Palladino containing the expressions of sympathy for the Neapolitan Section according to your wishes; kindly pass it on to him. Now to Mazzini. His article in Roma del Popolo I communicated to the Council last Tuesday. I shall send you within a few days the published report of the discussion. For Italy, however, it is desirable that the following be published. Mazzini says: “This Association founded some years ago in London, and to which I refused my co-operation from the very beginning … a nucleus of individuals who undertake directly to govern a vast multitude of men differing in country, tendencies, political conditions, economic interests and means of action, will end always by not operating, or will have to operate tyrannically. For this I withdrew, and the Italian workers’ section withdrew afterwards.” Now here are the facts. After the meeting on 28 September 1864, at which our society was founded as soon as the provisional Council was elected in the said public assembly, Major L. Wolf presented a manifesto and a set of rules drawn up by Mazzini himself. Not only was there no objection to directly governing a multitude, etc., not only did he not say that this effort “if it works entirely, will have to act tyrannically”, but on the contrary the rules were conceived in the spirit of a centralised conspiracy, giving tyrannical power to the central body. The manifesto was in the usual style of Mazzini, la démocratie vulgaire, offering political rights to the workers with the aim of keeping intact the social privileges of the middle and upper classes. This manifesto and draft rules were subsequently rejected. But the Italians (read the names on the back of our inaugural address) remained members until the matter was raised again regarding certain French democratic bourgeois who wished to make use of the International. When these were not received, then first Wolf and afterwards the others withdrew and we were done with Mazzini for ever. Some time afterwards, the Central Council, in reply to an article by Vésinier, declared in the Liège journal that Mazzini was never a member of the Association and that the plans of his manifesto and rules had been rejected. You will have seen that even in the English press Mazzini has furiously attacked the Paris Commune, which is exactly what he always does when the proletarians rise; after such a defeat he denounces them to the bourgeois. After the June 1848 insurrection he did the same, he denounced the insurgent proletarians so outrageously that even Louis Blanc wrote a pamphlet against him. And Louis Blanc has since told us several times that the June 1848 insurrection was the work of Bonapartist agents. If Mazzini calls our friend Marx “a man of genius … of a dissolving, domineering temper”, etc., etc., I can only tell you that Marx’s dissolving domination and jealous spirit have managed to keep our association united for seven years, and has done more than anyone else to bring it to its present proud position. As for the dismemberment of the society which, as they say, has already begun here in England, the fact is that two English members of the Council who had become too intimate with the bourgeoisie found our address on the civil war too strong and withdrew. In place of these we have acquired 4 new Englishmen and 1 Irishman, and we consider ourselves much stronger, here in England, than we were before the 2 renegades left us. Instead of finding ourselves in a state of dissolution, we are now for the first time publicly recognised by the entire English press as a great European power, and never has a small pamphlet produced better sensations than that produced here in London by the address on the civil war, of which the 3rd edition is about to come out. I repeat that it is highly desirable that this reply to Mazzini be published in Italian and that it be shown to the Italian workers that the great agitator and conspirator Mazzini has no other concept for them than this: education, instruct yourselves as best you can (as if that depended on yourselves alone), strive to create more frequent cooperative societies of consumption (not only of production) and trust in the future!!

At the meeting of last Tuesday the Council resolved: That a private conference of delegates of the various sections of the workers of the International Association be held in London on the 3rd Sunday of September (17 September). This resolution was adopted because a public congress is now impossible, given the governmental persecutions taking place in Spain, France, Germany and perhaps also in Italy. If we held a public congress, we would not have in most of these countries our delegates publicly elected, and they would probably be arrested on their return. This being the case, we are obliged to have recourse to a private conference, neither the convocation, nor the meeting, nor the deliberations being published. A similar conference took place in 1865 instead of a congress. The present conference can naturally meet only in London, this being the only capital in Europe where foreigners are not condemned by the police to expulsion. The number of delegates and the rules for the elections are left entirely to the various national divisions. The conference will have only a few days at its disposal and will thus limit its discussions mainly to practical questions concerning the internal administration and general organisation of the society. As its sessions will not be public, nor will the discussions be published afterwards, the discussion of theoretical points will be of little importance; however, the meeting of delegates will be a fortunate opportunity for them to exchange ideas. The General Council will submit to the conference a report of its management for the two past years, and the conference will pronounce on the same. Thus there will be several important questions before proceeding further. I beg you, however, to push forward the reorganisation of our sections in Italy, as much as possible, so that they may be represented at this conference. Since Gambuzzi will come to London around this time, perhaps he could arrange his journey conveniently and receive a mandate as one of your delegates. I must, however, at the same time draw your attention to chapter 8 of the Administrative Regulations, which says: Only the delegates of divisions and sections that have paid their contributions to the General Council may take part in the proceedings of the Congress. The contribution is one penny or 10 centimes per year for each member, and it would be good if they were sent before the conference, since it may be that, if things go otherwise, some difficulties might arise regarding the admission of delegates. Would you kindly send me at least 6 copies of the Italian translation “La guerra civile in Francia” as soon as it is published, for the use of the Council. It would be good if on the address of your letter, instead of my name, you put Miss Burns, exactly thus: Miss Burns, 122 Regent’s Park et rien de plus, with no other inner envelope or address. She is my niece and is a girl who does not know Italian, and therefore there is no mistake to fear. I also enclose our address to the American Council denouncing the conduct of their ambassador in Paris, Mr. Washburne. 2) and 3) published reports of the 2 meetings of the Council (these published reports contain nothing but what we wish to have published, having subtracted from them all the affairs of internal administration). F. Engels.