Written between mid-May 1874 and 
April 1875 

73, 117 and 118, June 17 and 26, Oc- 
tober 6 and 8, 1874; Nos. 36, 37, 43, 44 
and 45, March 28, April 2, 16, 18 and 
21, 1875. Article V appeared as a sepa- 
rate pamphlet: F. Engels, Soziales aus 
Rufland, Leipzig, 1875. Articles I, Il and V 
were reprinted in the book: F. Engels, 
Internationales aus dem ‘“Volksstaat” (1871- 
75), Berlin, 1894 

Signed: F. Engels 

paper, checked (Articles I, II and 
V) with the text of the 1894 edition 

first time 

I 

A POLISH PROCLAMATION 2 

When the Tsar of Russia arrived in London, the entire police 
force there was already astir. It was claimed that the Poles wanted 
to shoot him, the new Berezowski had already been found and was 
better armed than before, in Paris.2 The houses of well-known 
Poles were surrounded by plain-clothes policemen, and the police 
inspector with special responsibility for surveillance of Poles under 
the Empire was even summoned from Paris. The police precau- 
tions along the Tsar’s route from his residence into the City were 
organised according to positively strategic principles—and all this 
trouble for nothing! No Berezowski showed up, no pistol shots 
were fired, and the Tsar, who was trembling quite as much as his 
daughter, got off with a fright. All this trouble was not, however, 
entirely in vain, for the Tsar awarded a tip of £5 to every police 
superintendent and £2 to every police inspector (33 and 14 talers’ 
respectively) who had been on duty for his sake. 

Meanwhile, the Poles had other things on their minds than 
murdering the noble Alexander. The society called “The Polish 
People” * issued an “Address of the Polish Refugees to the English 
People”, signed: General W. Wrdblewski, President, J. Krynski, 
Secretary. This address was distributed in large numbers in 
London during the Tsar’s visit. With the exception of Reynolds’s 
Newspaper,” the London press unanimously refused to publish it: 
‘“England’s guest” should not be insulted! 

The address starts by pointing out to the English that it was no 
honour, but an insult, for the Tsar to visit them at the very 

a In the 1894 edition: “100 and 40 marks”.— Ed. 
b Reynolds’s Newspaper, No. 1240, May 17, 1874.— Ed. 

moment he was making preparations in Central Asia to overthrow 
English rule in India, and that if England, instead of lending a 
willing ear to the blandishments of the Tsar, this ostensible father 
of the peoples he oppresses, were to be less indifferent to the 
Poles’ aspirations to independence, England, as well as the rest of 
Western Europe, could quietly stop their colossal armaments. And 
this is quite correct. The background to all European militarism is 
Russian militarism. As a reserve in the war of 1859 on the side of 
France, in 1866 and 1870 on the side of Prussia,” the Russian 
army enabled the leading military power of the day to vanquish its 
enemy in isolation. As the leading European military power, Prussia 
is a direct creation of Russia, although she has since grown too large 
for her patron’s liking. 

The address continues: 

“By her geographical situation and by her readiness at any moment to fight in 
the cause of humanity, Poland always was, and in future always will continue to be, 
the foremost champion of justice, civilisation and social development in all North 
Eastern Europe. Poland has incontestably proved this by her centuries of resistance 
to the invasions of Eastern Barbarians § on the one hand, and to the inquisition, then 
oppressing nearly the entire West, on the other. How was it that the Nations of 
Western Europe were enabled peaceably to occupy themselves with the development 
of their social vitality precisely in the most decisive epoch of modern times? Merely 
because on the Eastern frontier of Europe the Polish soldier stood sentry, always 
watchful, always ready to charge, always prepared to sacrifice his health, his property, 
his life. It was owing to the shelter of Polish arms, that on Europe’s awakening to a new 
life in the sixteenth century, the arts and sciences could flourish afresh, that 
commerce, industry and wealth could attain their present wonderful extension. What, 
for instance, would have become of the legacy of civilisation left to the West by 
the labour of two centuries, had not Poland, herself threatened by Mongolian 
hordes at her back, come to the rescue of Central Europe threatened by the Turks, 
and broken the Ottoman power by the brilliant victory under the walls of 
Vienna7?” a 

The address goes on to argue that even today it is essentially 
Poland’s resistance that prevents Russia from turning her forces 
on the West and that has even managed to disarm the most 
dangerous allies of Russia, her pan-Slavist agents. The most 
renowned Russian historian, Pogodin, says, in a work printed by 
the order and at the expense of the Russian government,” that 
Poland, hitherto the most painful sore on Russia’s body, must 
become her right hand by restoring her as a small, weak kingdom 
under the sway of some Russian Prince—that would be the 
strongest bait for the Turkish and Austrian Slavonians: 

a Address of the Polish Refugees to the English People, London, 1874, p. 2.— Ed. 
5 M. II. Tloroguu, ITonvcxott sonpoce. Cobpanie pascyacdeniti, sanucoxs u 3ambB- 
uanit. 1831-1867.— Ed. 

Refugee Literature ——I. A Polish Proclamation 7 

“We shall [...}] proclaim this in a manifesto, England and France will bite their 
lips, and as for Austria it will be her death-blow.... All the Poles, even the most 
irreconcilable, will fly to our embrace; the Austrian and Prussian Poles will reunite 
with their brothers. All Slavonic races now oppressed by Austria, Czechs, Croats, 
Hungarians (!), even the Slavonians of Turkey, will long for the hour when they 
shall be able to breathe as freely as the Poles. We shall be a race of a hundred 
millions- under one sceptre, and then, ye nations of Europe, come and try your 
strength with us!” 8 

Unfortunately, this beautiful plan lacked only the main thing: 
the consent of Poland. But 
“to all those allurements—the world knows it—Poland replied: I will live and 

must live, if I am to live at all, not as the tool of a foreign Tsar’s plans for world 
conquest, but as a free nation among the free nations of Europe’”’.@ 

The address then explains in further detail how Poland has 
confirmed this unshakeable decision of hers. At the critical 
moment of her existence, at the outbreak of the French 
Revolution, Poland was already crippled by the first partition and 
divided between four states.” Yet she had the courage to raise the 
banner of the French Revolution on the Vistula—by the 
Constitution of the 3rd of May, 1791 10__a deed that earned her a 
place high above all her neighbours. The old Polish economy was 
thus destroyed; given a few decades of peaceful development, 
undisturbed from outside, and Poland would have become the 
most advanced and most powerful country east of the Rhine. It 
would not, however, suit the partition powers for Poland to rise 
once again, and even less for her to rise through the naturalisation 
of revolution in north-eastern Europe. Her fate was sealed: the 
Russians imposed on Poland what Prussians, Austrians and 
Imperial troops attempted in France in vain.” 

“Kosciuszko fought simultaneously for Polish independence and the principle of 
equality. [...] And it is notorious that from the moment of the loss of her national 
independence and in spite of it, Poland, in virtue of her innate patriotism and of 
her solidarity with all nations struggling for the rights of humanity, became the 
most active champion of justice outraged, no matter in what country, fighting on 
whatever battlefield tyranny was resisted. Unbroken by her own disasters, unshaken 
by the blindness and ill will of European governments, Poland has not for one 
moment been unmindful of the duties imposed upon her by herself, by history and 

At the same time, she has also developed the principles on 
which this future, the new Polish republic, will be organised: they 
are laid down in the manifestoes of 1836, 1845 and 1863.” 

a Address..., pp. 3-4.— Ed. 
b Ibid., p. 4.— Ed. 

“The first of those manifestoes, while asserting the unshakeable national rights 
of Poland, proclaims at the same time the equality of rights of the peasantry.2 That of 
1845, issued on Polish soil, in the then free city of Cracow,!5 and sanctioned by 
delegates from all parts of Poland, proclaims not only this equality of rights, but 
also the principle that the soil, cultivated by the peasantry for centuries, shall become 
their property.2—In the part of Poland stolen by the Muscovites, the landlords, 
accepting the above manifestoes as part and parcel of Polish national law, had long 
before the imperial so-called Emancipation Proclamation resolved to settle this 
internal matter, which troubled their consciences, voluntarily and by agreement 
with the peasantry (1859-1863). The Polish land question was resolved, in principle, 
by the Constitution of May 3rd, 1791; if since then the Polish peasantry have been 
oppressed it was solely in consequence of the despotism and Machiavellism4 of the 
Tsar who based his domination upon the mutual antagonism of landlords and 
peasants. The resolution was taken long before the imperial proclamation of 
February 19th, 1861; and this proclamation, applauded by the whole of Europe 
and pretending to establish equal rights for the peasants, is merely a cloak for one 
of the ever-repeated attempts of the Tsar to take unto himself other people’s 
property. The Polish rural populace is just as oppressed as before, but— the soil 
has become the property of the Tsar! And as a punishment for the bloody protest 
raised in 1863 against the treacherous barbarism of her oppressors,!4 Poland has 
had to undergo a, series of brutal persecutions such as would shake with horror 
even the tyranny of past centuries. [...] 

“And yet neither the cruel yoke of the Tsar, though it has now weighed on her 
for a full century, nor the indifference of Europe, have been able to kill Poland. 

“We have lived and we shall live by virtue of our own will, our own strength and 
our own social and political development, which renders us superior to our 
oppressors; for their existence is based, from beginning to end, upon brute force, 
prisons and the gallows, and their chief means of action abroad are clandestine 

Let us, however, leave the address, which has been adequately 
characterised by the above extracts, in order to append to it some 
observations on the importance of the Polish question for the 
German workers. 

No matter how much Russia had developed since Peter the 
Great, no matter how much her influence had grown in Europe 
(to which Frederick II of Prussia contributed more than a little, 
even though he knew full well what he was doing), she 
nevertheless remained essentially just as non-European a power as, 
for example, Turkey, until the moment she seized Poland. The 
first partition of Poland was in 1772; in 1779 in the Peace of 
Teschen* Russia was already demanding“ the attested right to 

@ Italicised by Engels.— Ed. 

b Address..., pp. 4-5.— Ed. 

© Traité de paix entre Sa Majesté l’Impératrice de Hongrie et de Bohéme, et Sa Majesté 
le Rot de Prusse, conclu et signé a Teschen le treize mai 1779, avec un article séparé et les 
conventions, garanties et actes annexés.— Ed. 

d In the 1894 edition added: “and received” .— Ed. 

Refugee Literature.—I. A Polish Proclamation 9 

interfere in German affairs.'? That should have taught the 
German princes a lesson; yet Frederick William II, the only 
Hohenzollern ever to offer serious resistance to Russian policy, 
and Francis II agreed to the complete break-up of Poland. After 
the Napoleonic wars, Russia took, in addition, the lion’s share of 
the previously Prussian and Austrian Polish provinces and now 
appeared openly as Europe’s arbiter, a role she continued to play, 
without interruption, until 1853. Prussia was evidently proud of 
being allowed to crawl before Russia; Austria followed reluctantly, 
but always gave way at the crucial moment for fear of revolution, 
against which the Tsar remained the last bulwark. Thus, Russia 
became the stronghold of European reaction, without denying 
herself the pleasure of preparing further conquests in Austria and 
Turkey with pan-Slavist rabble-rousing. During the years of 
revolution, the crushing of the Hungarians by Russia was just as 
decisive an event for Eastern and Central Europe as was the June 
battle in Paris for the West'’; and when Tsar Nicholas shortly 
afterwards sat in judgment on the King of Prussia* and the 
Emperor of Austria’ in Warsaw, Russia’s domination set the seal 
on the domination of reaction in Europe.’* The Crimean War 
liberated the West and Austria from the Tsar’s insolence !*; Prussia 
and the small states of Germany were al] the more willing to crawl 
before him; but, in 1859, he was already chastising the Austrians 
for their disobedience by ensuring that his German vassals did not 
side with them,” and in 1866 Prussia completed the punishment 
of Austria.”7 We have already seen above that the Russian army 
constitutes the pretext for and the reserve of all European 
militarism. Only the fact that Nicholas had challenged the West in 
1853, relying on his million soldiers (who, admittedly, existed 
largely on paper only), provided Louis Napoleon with an excuse in 
the Crimean War to turn the then rather enfeebled French army 
into the strongest in Europe. Only because the Russian army 
prevented Austria from siding with France in 1870” was Prussia 
able to defeat France and to complete the Prusso-German military 
monarchy. Behind all these grand performances of state** we see 
the Russian army. And even if the victory of Germany over France 
will just as surely produce a war between Russia and Germany— 
unless Russia’s internal development soon enters a revolutionary 
flux—as the victory of Prussia over Austria at Sadowa™ entailed 

a Frederick William I1V.— Ed. 
b Francis Joseph I.— Ed. 

the Franco-German War,* the Russian army will always be 
prepared to oppose any movement in the interior of Prussia. Even 
today, official Russia is the stronghold and bulwark of all 
European reaction, her army the reserve of all other armies, 
ensuring the suppression of the working class in Europe. 

Yet it is the German workers who are first exposed to the 
onslaught of this large reserve army of oppression, both in the 
so-called German Empire and in Austria. As long as the Russians 
stand behind the Austrian and German bourgeoisie and govern- 
ments, the sting is taken out of the entire German labour 
movement. So we, more than any others, have an interest in 
ridding ourselves of Russian reaction and the Russian army. 

Moreover, in doing this we have only one reliable ally, which 
will remain reliable in all circumstances: the Polish people. 

Through her historical development and her present position, 
Poland is faced, far more than France is, with the choice of either 
being revolutionary or perishing. And this scotches all the silly talk 
concerning the essentially aristocratic nature of the Polish move- 
ment. There are plenty of Polish refugees who have aristocratic 
cravings; but once Poland herself enters the movement it becomes 
revolutionary through and through, as we have seen in 1846”° and 
1863. These movements were not simply national; they were also 
aimed directly at liberating the peasants and transferring landed 
property to them. In 1871 the great mass of Polish refugees in 
France entered the service of the Commune”; was this an act of 
aristocrats? Did that not prove that these Poles were at the very 
apex of the modern movement? Since Bismarck introduced the 
Kulturkampf*’ in Posen* and, on the pretext of striking a blow 
against the Pope,” searches out Polish textbooks, suppresses the 
Polish language and does his utmost to drive the Poles into the 
arms of Russia, what happens? The Polish aristocracy is increas- 
ingly siding with Russia to at least reunify Poland under Russian 
rule; the revolutionary masses reply by offering to ally themselves 
with the German workers’ party and fighting in the ranks of the 
International. 

In 1863, Poland showed that she could not be done to death, 
and continues to show this every day. Her claim to an 

* This is already stated in the “Second Address of the General Council of the 
International Working Men’s Association on the Franco-German War” (dated 
September 9, 1870). 

a The 1894 edition has: “Poland”’.— Ed. 
b Pius I1X.— Ed. 

Refugee Literature.—I. A Polish Proclamation 1] 

independent existence in the European family of nations is 
irrefutable. Her restoration, however, is a necessity for two nations 
in particular: for the Germans and for the Russians themselves. 

A people that oppresses others cannot emancipate itself. The 
power it needs to oppress others is ultimately always turned 
against itself. As long as there are Russian soldiers in Poland, the 
Russian people cannot liberate itself politically or socially. At the 
present stage of development in Russia, however, it is beyond 
dispute that the day Russia loses Poland, the movement will 
become strong enough in Russia herself to bring down the existing 
order. The independence of Poland and revolution in Russia 
imply each other. Meanwhile, Polish independence and revolution 
in Russia—which is far closer than it would appear on the surface, 
given the complete social, political and financial breakdown and 
the corruption that pervades the whole of official Russia—mean 
for the German workers that the bourgeoisie, the governments, in 
short, reaction in Germany, will be reduced to their own forces, 
forces that we shall, in time, overcome. 

II 

PROGRAMME OF THE BLANQUIST COMMUNE 
REFUGEES 28 

After every unsuccessful revolution or counter-revolution, fever- 
ish activity develops among the émigrés who escaped abroad. Party 
groups of various shades are formed, which accuse each other of 
having driven the cart into the mud, of treason and of all other 
possible mortal sins. They also maintain close ties with the 
homeland, organise, conspire, print leaflets and newspapers, swear 
that it will start over again within the next twenty-four hours, that 
victory is certain and, in the wake of this expectation, distribute 
government posts. Naturally, disappointment follows disappoint- 
ment, and since this is attributed not to inevitable historical 
conditions, which they do not wish to understand, but to 
accidental mistakes by individuals, recriminations accumulate and 
result in general bickering. Such is the history of all refugee 
societies, from the royalist émigrés of 1792”° to those of today; 
and those among the émigrés who have common sense and reason 
give up this fruitless squabbling as soon as this can properly be 
done, and turn to something more useful. 

The French emigration after the Commune has not escaped this 
inevitable fate either. Owing to the European smear campaign, 
which attacked all equally, and especially in London, where the 
French emigration had its common centre in the General Council 
of the International, for some time it was compelled to conceal its 
internal squabbles at least from the outside world. In the last two 
years, however, it was no longer able to hide the process of 
disintegration that is progressing rapidly in its ranks. An open 
quarrel flared up everywhere. In Switzerland some of the refugees 
joined the Bakuninists, notably under the influence of Malon, who 
was one of the founders of the secret Alliance. Then, in London, 

Refugee Literature —II. Programme of Blanquist Refugees 13 

the so-called Blanquists split off from the International and 
formed a group that called itself the Revolutionary Commune.” 
Later, a number of other groups emerged that were, however, 
constantly fusing and reorganising, and did not produce anything 
worthwhile even as regards manifestoes, whereas the Blanquists 
have just issued the proclamation to the “Communeux”’,’ calling 
the world’s attention to their programme. 

They are called Blanquists not because they are a group 
founded by Blanqui—of the 33 signatories to the programme only 
a few may ever have spoken to Blanqui—but because they want to 
act in his spirit and in accordance with his tradition. Blanqui is 
essentially a political revolutionary, a socialist only in sentiment, 
because of his sympathy for the sufferings of the people, but he 
has neither socialist theory nor definite practical proposals for 
social reforms. In his political activities he was essentially a “man 
of action”, believing that, if a small well-organised minority should 
attempt to effect a revolutionary uprising at the right moment, it 
might, after scoring a few initial successes, carry the mass of the 
people and thus accomplish a victorious revolution. Naturally, 
under Louis Philippe he was able to organise this nucleus only in 
the form of a secret society, and it met the fate usually reserved 
for conspiracies: the people, fed up with the constant proffering 
of empty promises that it would soon begin, finally lost all 
patience, became rebellious, and there remained only the alterna- 
tive of letting the conspiracy collapse or of striking without any 
external cause. They struck (May 12, 1839), but the insurrection 
was immediately suppressed.” This Blanqui conspiracy, by the 
way, was the only one in which the police never succeeded in 
gaining a foothold; for the police, the insurrection came like a bolt 
from the blue.—Since Blanqui regards every revolution as a coup 
de main by a small revolutionary minority, it automatically follows 
that its victory must inevitably be succeeded by the establishment 
of a dictatorship—not, it should be well noted, of the entire 
revolutionary class, the proletariat, but of the small number of 
those who accomplished the coup and who themselves are, at first, 
organised under the dictatorship of one or several individuals. 

Obviously, Blanqui is a revolutionary of the old generation. 
These views on the course of revolutionary events have long since 
become obsolete, at least as far as the German workers’ party is 
concerned, and in France, too, they meet the approval only of the 
less mature or more impatient workers. We shall also find that, in 

a Aux Communeux, London, June 1874.— Ed. 

the programme in question, definite limitations have been 
imposed on these views. However, our London Blanquists too are 
guided by the principle that revolutions do not generally occur by 
themselves, but are made; that they are made by a relatively small 
minority and according to a plan worked out in advance; and, 
finally, that at any time it may “soon begin”. With such principles 
people naturally become irretrievable victims of all the self- 
deceptions of the refugees and plunge from one folly into another. 
Most of all they want to play the role of Blanqui—the “man of 
action”. But little good can be accomplished here by good will 
alone; Blanqui’s revolutionary instinct, his ability to reach quick 
decisions are not, however, given to all, and no matter how much 
Hamlet may speak of action, he still remains Hamlet. Moreover, 
when our thirty-three men of action find that there is absolutely 
nothing to be done in the field they call action, our thirty-three 
Brutuses fall into a contradiction with themselves, which is comical 
rather than tragic, a contradiction wherein the tragedy is not 
heightened by the gloomy appearance they assume, as though they 
are a lot of “Moros, of the cloak and dagger’’,* which, by the way, 
does not even enter their heads. What can they do? They are 
preparing for the next “outburst”, by drawing up proscription 
lists for the future, to cleanse (épuré) the ranks of the people who 
took part in the Commune, which is why the other refugees call 
them the pure (les purs). Whether or not they have themselves 
assumed that title I do not know; it would ill fit some of them. 
Their meetings are closed, their decisions are kept secret, but this 
does not prevent their being echoed throughout the whole French 
Quarter the following morning. As always happens with such 
serious men of action, when they have nothing to do—they have 
picked first a personal, then a literary quarrel with a worthy 
opponent, one of the most notorious members of the Paris petite 
press, a certain Vermersch, who under the Commune published 
the Pere Duchéne, a miserable caricature of Hébert’s newspaper of 
1793. In reply to their moral indignation, this gentleman 
published a pamphlet in which he branded them as “rogues or 
accomplices of rogues”” and poured a veritable stream of abusive 

invectives at them: 
Each word a night-pot 
and not an empty one at that.¢ 

a F. Schiller, Die Bürgschaft (“Damon und Phintias’’), lst stanza.— Ed. 

b E. Vermersch, Un mot au public, London, April 1874; Les partageux. Poéme, 
May 12, 1874.— Ed. 

© H. Heine, “Disputation”, Verse 86, Romanzero. Drittes Buch. Hebräische 
Melodien.— Fd. 

Refugee Literature.— I]. Programme of Blanquist Refugees 15 

And our thirty-three Brutuses find it worthwhile to pick a public 
quarrel with such an opponent! 

If one thing is certain it is that, after the exhausting war, after 
the hunger in Paris and, notably, after the awful blood-letting of 
the May days in 1871,” the Paris proletariat needs a long rest to 
recuperate, and that every premature attempt at an insurrection 
can only end in a new, perhaps still more horrible defeat. Our 
Blanquists hold a different view. In their opinion, the disintegra- 
tion of the monarchic majority in Versailles** ushers in 

“the fall of Versailles, the revanche for the Commune. This is because we are 
approaching a great historical moment, one of the great crises when the people, 

apparently succumbing in wretchedness and condemned to death, resume their 
revolutionary advance with renewed force”.? 

So, it starts all over again, and what is more, immediately. This 
hope for an immediate “revanche for the Commune” is not 
merely an émigré illusion; it is an essential article of faith for 
people who have taken it into their heads to play “men of action” 
at a time when absolutely nothing can be done in their sense, that 
is, in the sense of precipitating a revolution. All the same, since it 
is to begin, they feel that “the time has come for all refugees who 
still have a spark of life left in them to define their position”.” 
And thus the thirty-three tell us that they are 1) atheists, 2) 
Communists, 3) revolutionaries. 

Our Blanquists have a basic feature in common with the 
Bakuninists, in that they want to represent the most far-reaching, 
most extreme trend. It is for this reason, incidentally, that the 
Blanquists, while opposing the Bakuninists over aims, often agree 
with them over means. It is, therefore, a question of being more 
radical than all others as regards atheism. Luckily, it is easy 
enough these days to be an atheist. In the European workers’ 
parties atheism is more or less self-understood, even though in 
some countries it is quite often similar to that of the Spanish 
Bakuninist who declared: to believe in God is against all socialism, 
but to believe in the Virgin Mary is something quite different, and 
every decent Socialist should naturally do so. As regards the 
German Social-Democratic workers,° it can be said that atheism has 
already outlived its usefulness for them; this pure negation does 
not apply to them, since they no longer stand in theoretical, but 
only in practical opposition to all belief in God: they are simply 

a Aux Communeux, p. 2.— Ed. 

b Ibid.— Ed. 

¢ The 1894 edition has: “As regards the great majority of the German 
Social-Democratic workers” .— Ed. 

through with God, they live and think in the real world and are, 
therefore, materialists. The same probably applies to France. If 
not, there could be nothing simpler than to organise the mass 
distribution among the workers of the splendid French materialist 
literature of the last century, of the literature in which the French 
spirit has attained its sublime expression as regards both form and 
content, and which, considering the level of science that existed 
then, even today stands exceedingly high as regards content, and 
still unexcelled as regards form. This, however, does not suit our 
Blanquists. To prove that they are the most radical of all, God, as 
in 1793,” is decreed out of existence: 

“Let the Commune forever deliver mankind from this spectre of past misery” 
(God), “of this cause” (non-existent God a cause!) “of their present misery.— There 
is no room for priests in the Commune; every religious service, every religious 
organisation must be banned.” 2 

And this demand to transform the people par ordre du mufti” 
into atheists is signed by two members of the Commune, who 
surely must have had sufficient opportunity to discover, first, that 
anything can be decreed on paper but that this does not mean that 
it will be carried out; second, that persecution is the best way of 
strengthening undesirable convictions! This much is certain: the 
only service that can still be rendered to God today is to make 
atheism a compulsory dogma and to surpass Bismarck’s anticlerical 
Kulturkampf laws by prohibiting religion in general. . 

The second point of the programme is communism. Here we 
find ourselves on more familiar ground for the ship we are sailing 
here is called the Manifesto of the Communist Party, published in 
February 1848. Already in the autumn of 1872 the five Blanquists 
who had left the International embraced a socialist programme 
that, in all its essential features, was that of present-day German 
communism, and based their withdrawal solely on the refusal of 
the International to play at revolution after the fashion of those 
five.°° Now the council of the thirty-three has adopted this pro- 
gramme, with all its materialist view of history, even though 
its translation into Blanquist French leaves much to be desired where 
the wording of the Manifesto was not kept almost verbatim, as for 
example, in this phrase: 

a Aux Communeux, p. 4.— Ed. 

b by order of the mufti, by order from above.— Ed. 

© A slip of the pen; the proclamation is signed by four members of the 
Commune: Edouard Vaillant, Emile Eudes, Jean Clement and Frédéric Cournet.— 
Ed. 

Refugee Literature.— Il. Programme of Blanquist Refugees 17 

“The bourgeoisie has removed the mystic veils from the exploitation of labour 
in which this last expression of all forms of slavery was formerly shrouded: 
governments, religions, the family, laws, institutions of both the past and present 
are finally revealed in this society, resting on the simple opposition of capitalists 
and wage-workers, as the instruments of oppression, with whose help the 
bourgeoisie upholds its rule and suppresses the proletariat.” 4 

Let us compare this with the Communist Manifesto, Section I: ‘In 
one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and _ political 
illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal 
exploitation. The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every 
occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. 
It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the 
man of science, into its paid wage-labourers. The bourgeoisie has 
torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced 
the family relation to a mere money relation,” etc.” 

Yet as soon as we leave theory aside and get down to practice, 
the peculiar stand of the thirty-three becomes evident: 

“We are Communists because we want to arrive at our aim without stop-overs at 
intermediate stations, without entering into compromises, which only put off 
victory and prolong slavery.” ¢ 

The German Communists are Communists because, through all 
intermediate stations and compromises, created not by them but 
by historical development, they clearly perceive“ the ultimate aim: 
the abolition of classes, the establishment of a society in which 
there will be no private ownership of land and means of 
production. The thirty-three are Communists because they im- 
agine that, as soon as they have only the good will to jump over 
intermediate stations and compromises, everything is assured, and 
if, as they firmly believe, it “begins” in a day or two, and they take 
the helm, “communism will be introduced” the day after 
tomorrow. And they are not Communists if this cannot be done 
immediately. What childish naiveté to advance impatience as a 
convincing theoretical argument! 

Finally, our thirty-three are “revolutionaries”. As regards the 
bandying of big words, the Bakuninists are known to have done 
everything humanly possible in this respect. But our Blanquists 
feel obliged to outdo them. But how? It will be remembered that 
the whole socialist proletariat, from Lisbon and New York to 
Budapest and Belgrade, immediately adopted responsibility for 

a Aux Communeux, pp. 4-5.— Ed. 

b See present edition, Vol. 6, p. 487.— Ed. 

¢ Aux Communeux, p. 5.— Ed. 

d The 1894 edition has: “they clearly perceive and pursue”.— Ed. 
© Aux Communeux, p. 7.— Ed. , 

the actions of the Paris Commune en bloc. But that is not enough 
for our Blanquists: 

“As far as we are concerned, we claim our share of the responsibility for the 
executions” (under the Commune) “of the enemies of the people” (a list of the 
executed is appended), “we claim our share of the responsibility for the arson that 
destroyed the instruments of monarchic or bourgeois oppression or protected those 
engaged in struggle.” 

A lot of follies are unavoidably committed in every revolution, 
as they are indeed at all other times, and when at last people calm 
down sufficiently to be able to review events critically, they 
inevitably draw the following conclusion: we have done many 
things that it would have been better to leave undone, and have 
failed to do many things that it would have been better to do, and 
that is why things took a bad turn. But what a lack of critical 
attitude is needed to declare the Commune impeccable and 
infallible and to assert that, every time a house was burned down 
or a hostage shot, this was a case of retributive justice, right down 
to the dot on the “i”. Is this not tantamount to asserting that, 
during the week in May, the people shot precisely the number of 
people, and no more, than was necessary, that exactly those 
buildings were burned down, and no more, than had to be burned 
down? Is that not tantamount to saying of the first French 
revolution: each one beheaded got his deserts, first those whom 
Robespierre beheaded, and then Robespierre himself? Such 
childish patter results when essentially quite good-natured people 
give in to the urge to appear savagely brutal. 

Enough. In spite of all the foolish actions taken by the refugees 
and the droll attempts to make boy Karl (or Eduard?)” appear 
awe-inspiring, some definite progress can be noted in _ this 
programme. It is the first manifesto in which French workers rally to 
the cause of present-day German communism. Moreover, these workers 
are of a trend that regards the French as the chosen people of the 
revolution, and Paris the revolutionary Jerusalem. To have 
brought them this far is to the indisputable credit of Vaillant, who 
is one of the signatories and who, as is widely known, has a good 
knowledge of the German language and of German socialist 
writing. The German socialist workers who, in 1870, proved that 
any national chauvinism is absolutely alien to them, may consider 
it a favourable omen that the French workers are adopting correct 
theoretical principles, even though these come from Germany. 

a Aux Communeux, pp. 11-12.— Ed 

b Engels plays on the words of Philipp II from Schiller’s drama Don Carlos 

(Act I, Scene 6). In the 1894 edition the words “(or Eduard?)”—an allusion to 
Edouard Vaillant—are omitted.— Ed. 

III 37 

In London a review entitled Vperyod! (Forward)* is appearing 
in the Russian language and at irregular intervals. It is edited by a 
personally most respectable scholar,” whom the prevailing strict 
etiquette in Russian refugee literature prevents me from naming. 
For even those Russians who pose as out-and-out revolutionary 
ogres, who dub it a betrayal of the revolution to respect anything 
at all—in their polemics even they respect the appearance of 
anonymity with a conscientiousness only equalled in the English 
bourgeois press; they respect it even when it becomes comical, as 
it does here, because all the Russian refugees and the Russian 
government know perfectly well what the man’s name is. It would 
never occur to us to let out such a carefully kept secret without 
good reason; but since the child must have a name, let us hope 
that the editor of the Forward will excuse us if, for the sake of 
brevity, in this article we call him by the popular Russian name 
Peter. 

In his philosophy, Friend Peter is an eclectic who selects the best 
from all the different systems and theories: try everything and 
keep the best! He knows that everything has a good side and a 
bad side, and that the main thing is to appropriate the good side 
of everything without being saddled with the bad, too. Since every 
thing, every person, every theory has these two sides, a good and a 
bad, every thing, every person, every theory is as good and as bad 
as any other in this respect, hence, from this vantage point, it 
would be foolish to become impassioned for or against one or the 
other. From this point of view, the struggles and disputes of the 

a Bnepeds! Henepioduueckoe obo3pbuie.— Ed. 
b P. L. Lavrov.— Ed. 

4* 

revolutionaries and socialists amongst themselves are bound to 
appear sheer fatuous absurdities that serve no better purpose than 
to please their opponents. Moreover, nothing could be more 
understandable for a man of this opinion than to attempt to bring 
all of these mutually hostile factions together and earnestly enjoin 
them no longer to treat reaction to this scandalous spectacle, but 
exclusively to attack the common adversary. All the more natural, 
of course, if one comes from Russia, where the labour movement 
is, as we know, so extremely highly developed. 

The Forward is, then, full of exhortations urging concord on all 
socialists or urging them, at least, to avoid all public discord. When 
the Bakuninists’ attempts to subjugate the International to their 
rule under false pretences, by lies and deceit, occasioned the 
well-known split in the Association, again it was the Forward that 
exhorted us to unity. This unity could, of course, only be attained 
by immediately letting the Bakuninists have their way and 
delivering the International up to their secret conspiracies, tied 
hand and foot. One was not unprincipled enough to do so; one 
accepted the challenge; the Hague Congress came to its decision, 
threw out the Bakuninists and resolved to publish the documents 
justifying this expulsion.” 

There was a great deal of lamentation on the editorial board of 
the Forward over the fact that the entire labour movement had not 
been sacrificed to dear “unity”. Yet even greater was the horror 
when the compromising Bakuninist documents really did appear 
in the commission’s report (see “Ein Komplott gegen die 
Internationale”,*? German edition, Brunswick, Bracke). Let us 
hear from the Forward itself: 

“This publication ... has the character of caustic polemics against persons who 
are in the foremost ranks of the Federalists, ... its contents are topped up with 

private matters which could only have been collected by hearsay, and the credibility 
of which could consequently not have been indisputable for the authors.” 2 

In order to prove to the people who implemented the decision 
of the Hague Congress what a colossal crime they had committed, 
the Forward refers to a feuilleton in the Neue Freie Presse by a 
certain Karl Thaler, which, 

“having emerged from the bourgeois camp, merits particular attention because 
it proves most clearly the importance for the common enemies of the working class, 

a [P. L. Lavrov,] “Abronuch pa6oyuaro azByxKeHia”’, Bnepedos! Henepioduueckoe 
obo3pbuie, Zurich, 1874, Vol. II, Part II, Ch. II, p. 26.— Ed. 

b Karl von Thaler, “Rothe Jesuiten”, Neue Freie Presse (Morgenblatt), Nos. 3284 
and 3285, October 14 and 15, 1873 (in the section Feuilleton).— Ed. 

Refugee Literature.—III 21 

for the bourgeoisie and governments of the mutually accusatory pamphlets of the 
contenders for supremacy among the ranks of the workers”? 

First let us remark that the Bakuninists are here presented 
simply as “ Federalists”, as opposed to the alleged Centralists, as if 
the author believed in this non-existent opposition invented by the 
Bakuninists. That this was not, in fact, the case will become 
evident. Second, let us remark that from this feuilleton, written to 
order for such a venal bourgeois sheet as the Vienna Neue Freie 
Presse, the conclusion is drawn that genuine revolutionaries should 
not expose merely ostensible revolutionaries because these mutual 
accusations provide amusement for the bourgeois and govern- 
ments. I believe that the Neue Freie Presse and all this press rabble 
could write ten thousand articles without having the slightest effect 
on the stance of the German workers’ party. Every struggle has 
moments when one cannot deny one’s opponent a certain 
satisfaction, if one is not to inflict positive damage on oneself. 
Fortunately, we have got so far that we can allow our opponents 
this private pleasure if we thereby achieve real successes. 

The main charge, however, is that the report is full of private 
matters the credibility of which could not have been indisputable 
for the authors, because they could only have been collected by 
hearsay. How Friend Peter knows that a society like the 
International, which has its official organs throughout the civilised 
world, can only collect such facts by hearsay is not stated. His 
assertion is, anyway, frivolous in the extreme. The facts in 
question are attested by authentic evidence, and those concerned 
took good care not to contest them. 

But Friend Peter is of the opinion that private matters, such as 
private letters, are sacred and should not be published in political 
debates. To accept the validity of this argument on any terms is to 
render the writing of all history impossible. The relationship 
between Louis XV and Du Barry or Pompadour was a private 
matter, but without it the whole pre-history of the French Rev- 
olution is incomprehensible. Or, to take a step towards the 
present: if an innocent girl called Isabella’ is married to a man‘ 
who, according to experts (assessor Ulrichs, for example) cannot 
stand women and hence only falls in love with men—if, finding 
herself neglected, she takes men wherever she finds them, then 
that is purely a private matter. But if the said innocent Isabella is 

a (P. L. Lavrov,) “Abronucp pa6ouaro aBuxenia”, Bnepedos!, Zurich, 1874, 
Vol. II, Part II, Ch. II, p. 26.— Ed. 

b Isabella 11—Queen of Spain.— Ed. 

¢ Francisco de Asis.— Ed. 

a2 Frederick Engels 

Queen of Spain and one of these young men kept by her is a 
young officer called Serrano’; if this Serrano is promoted field 
marshal and prime minister in recognition of the heroic deeds he 
has performed behind closed doors, is then supplanted and 
overthrown by another,” subsequently throws his faithless 
sweetheart out of the country with the help of other companions 
in misfortune, and after a variety of adventures eventually himself 
becomes dictator of Spain and such a great man that Bismarck 
does his utmost to persuade the Great Powers to recognise 
him—then this private affair between Isabella and Serrano 
becomes a piece of Spanish history, and anyone wishing to write 
about modern Spanish history and knowingly concealing this titbit 
from his readers would be falsifying history. Again, if one is 
describing the history of a gang like the Alliance, among whom 
there is such a large number of tricksters, adventurers, rogues, 
police spies, swindlers and cowards alongside those they have 
duped, should one falsify this history by knowingly concealing the 
individual villainies of these gentlemen as “private matters”? Much 
as it may horrify Friend Peter, he may rely on it that we are not 
done with these “private matters” by a long chalk. The material is 
still mounting up. 

When, however, the Forward describes the report as a clumsy 
concoction of essentially private facts, it is committing an act that is 
hard to characterise. Anyone who could write such a thing had 
either not read the report in question at all; or he was too limited 
or prejudiced to understand it; or else he was writing something 
he knew to be incorrect. Nobody can read the “Komplott gegen 
die Internationale” without being convinced that the private 
matters interspersed in it are the most insignificant part of it, are 
illustrations meant to provide a more detailed picture of the 
characters involved, and that they could all be cut without 
jeopardising the main point of the report. The organisation of a 
secret society, with the sole aim of subjecting the European labour 
movement to a hidden dictatorship of a few adventurers, the 
infamies committed to further this aim, particularly by Nechayev 
in Russia *°—this is the central theme of the book, and to maintain 
that it all revolves around private matters is, to say the least, 
irresponsible. 

To be sure, it may be extremely painful for some Russians 
suddenly to see the dirty side—and it certainly is very dirty—of 

4 Francisco Serrano y Dominguez.— Ed. 
b Luis Gonzales Bravo.— Ed. 

Refugee Literature.—III 23 

the Russian movement ruthlessly exposed to Western Europe. But 
who is to blame? Who else but those Russians themselves who 
represent this dirty side, who, not satisfied with deceiving their 
own compatriots, attempted to subordinate the whole European 
labour movement to their personal ends? If Bakunin and company 
had restricted their heroic deeds to Russia, people in Western 
Europe would hardly have troubled to train their sights on them. 
The Russians themselves would have done that. But as soon as 
those gentlemen, who do not even understand the rudiments of 
the conditions and development of the West European labour 
movement, seek to play the dictator with us, it ceases to be 
amusing: one simply fires at them pointblank. 

Anyway, the Russian movement can take such revelations with 
equanimity. A country that has produced two writers of the 
stature of Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky, two socialist Lessings, 
will not be destroyed because, all at once, it spawns a humbug like 
Bakunin and a few immature little students, who inflate them- 
selves with big words like frogs, and finally gobble one another up. 
Even among the younger Russians we know people of first-class 
theoretical and practical talents and great energy, people who have 
the advantage over the French and the English, thanks to their 
knowledge of languages, in their intimate acquaintance with the 
movement in different countries, and over the Germans in their 
cosmopolitan versatility. Those Russians who understand and 
participate in the labour movement can only regard it as a service 
rendered to have been relieved of complicity in the Bakuninists’ 
acts of villainy. All this does not, however, prevent the Forward 
from concluding its account with the words: 

“We do not know what the authors of this pamphlet think of the results it has 
achieved. The majority of our readers would probably share the feeling of 
depression with which we have read it and with which we record these sorry 
phenomena in our pages, in pursuance of our duty as chroniclers.”’4 

With this feeling of depression on the part of Friend Peter we 
conclude the first section of our tale. The second begins with the 
following paragraph from the same volume of the Forward: 

“Our readers will be pleased to receive another piece of news in a similar vein. 
With us, in our ranks, we also have the well-known writer Peter Nikitich Tkachov; 

after four years’ detention he has succeeded in escaping from the place where he 
was interned and condemned to inactivity, to reinforce our ranks.”’> 

a (P. L. Lavrov,] Op. cit., p. 27.— Ed 
b Bnepedo! Henepioduuecnoe o603pbuie, Vol. II, Part 2, Zurich, 1874: H30 Hpxymexa. 
In the section: Umo dbszaemca na Podunb?, p. 115.— Ed. 

We learn who the well-known writer Tkachov is from a Russian 
pamphlet, The Tasks of Revolutionary Propaganda in Russia, which 
he himself published in April 1874 and which depicts him as a 
green grammar-school boy of singular immaturity, the Karlchen 
Missnick, as it were, of Russian revolutionary youth. He tells us 
that many people have asked him to collaborate in the Forward; he 
knew the editor was a reactionary; nevertheless, he considered it 
his duty to take the Forward under his wing, although—it should 
be noted— it had not asked for him. On arriving he finds, to his 
astonishment, that the editor, Friend Peter, presumes to make the 
final decision on the acceptance or rejection of articles. Such an 
undemocratic procedure naturally infuriates him; he composes a 
detailed document claiming, for himself and the other staff 
(who—it should be noted—had not asked for it), “in the name of 
justice, on the basis of purely theoretical considerations ... equality 
of rights and obligations” (with the editor-in-chief) “with regard to 
everything affecting the literary and economic side of the 
enterprise’’.* 

Here we see straightaway the immaturity that, while it does not 
dominate the Russian refugee movement, is, nevertheless, more or 
less endured. A Russian scholar, who has a considerable reputa- 
tion in his own country, becomes a refugee and acquires the 
means to found a political journal abroad. Scarcely has he 
managed to do this, when some more or less enthusiastic youth 
comes along, unasked, and offers to take part, on the more or less 
childish condition that he should have an equal voice with the 
founder of the journal in all literary and financial matters. In 
Germany he would have been laughed at. But the Russians are not 
so coarse. Friend Peter goes to great pains to convince him that he 
is wrong, both “in the name of justice and on the basis of purely 
theoretical considerations”—naturally in vain. Tkachov, offended, 
withdraws like Achilles to his tent*' and fires off his pamphlet 
against Friend Peter, whom he calls a “philistine philosopher”.” 

With a stifling heap of eternally repeated Bakuninist phrases 
about the nature of true revolution, he accuses Friend Peter of the 
crime of preparing the people for revolution, of seeking to bring 
them to a “clear understanding and awareness of their needs”. 
Anyone, however, who wishes to do that is no revolutionary, but a 
man of peaceful progress, i.e., a reactionary, a supporter of 

aI. H. Tkayésn, Sadauu pesomouionnott nponazandvt 6s Pocciu, [London,] 1874, 
p. VIII.— Ed. 
b Ibid., p. 10.— Ed. 

Refugee Literature.— III 25 

9”a 

“bloodless revolution in the German taste”.* The true revolution- 
ary “knows that the people are always ready for revolution”; 
anyone who does not believe this does not believe in the people, 
and faith in the people “constitutes our strength’. To anyone who 
does not realise this, the writer quotes a pronouncement by 
Nechayev, this “typical representative of our modern youth”. 
Friend Peter says we must wait until the people are ready for 
revolution—‘“‘but we cannot and will not wait‘; the true 
revolutionary differs from the philistine philosopher in that he 
“assumes the right to summon the people to revolution at any 
time”.* And so on. 

Here in Western Europe we would simply dismiss all this 
childish nonsense with the answer: “If your people are ready for 
revolution at any time, if you assume the right to summon them to 
revolution at any time, and if you simply cannot wait, why do you 
go on boring us with your prattle, why, for goodness sake, don’t 
you go ahead and strike now?” 

But our Russians do not view matters quite so simply. Friend 
Peter thinks that Mr. Tkachov’s childish, tedious and contradictory 
observations, which revolve in an eternal circle, may exert the 
seductive attraction of a mons veneris*” on Russian youth, and, as the 
faithful Eckart of this youth, he issues an admonitory exhortation of 
sixty closely printed pages against them. In this he sets out his own 
views on the nature of revolution, investigating in deadly earnest 
whether or not the people are ready for revolution and in what 
circumstances revolutionaries have the right to summon them to 
revolution or not and similar niceties, which at this level of generality 
have about as much value as the scholastics’ studies of the Virgin 
Mary. In the process, “the Revolution” itself becomes a sort of 
Virgin Mary, theory becomes faith, activity in the movement 
becomes a religion, and the whole debate takes place not on terra 
firma, but in a cloudy sky of generalities. 

Here, however, Friend Peter becomes involved in a tragic 
contradiction with himself. He, the preacher of unity, the 
opponent of all polemics, of all “mutually accusatory pamphlets” 
within the revolutionary party, cannot, of course, do his duty as 
Eckart, without also engaging in polemics; he cannot reply to his 
opponent’s accusations without similarly accusing him. Friend 

a Ibid., p. 8.— Ed. 

b Ibid., p. 10.— Ed 

© Ibid., p. 34.— Ed. 

4 Ibid., p. 10.— Ed. 

e [P. L. Lavrov,] Pyccxott coyianvno-pesorwyionnot, morodéncu, [London,]) 1874.— Ed. 

Peter will himself testify to the “feeling of depression” that 
accompanies this “sorry phenomenon”’. 

His pamphlet begins as follows: 

“Of two evils, one must choose the lesser. 

“T know full well that all this refugee literature of mutually accusatory 
pamphlets, of polemics about who is the genuine friend of the people and who is 
not, who is honest and who is not, and, in particular, who is genuine representative 
of Russian youth, of the true revolutionary party—that all this literature about the 
personal dirt of the Russian emigration is as repugnant to the reader as it is 
insignificant for the revolutionary struggle, and can only gratify our enemies—this 
I know, and yet I find it necessary to pen these lines, necessary with my own hand 
to swell the number of these wretched writings by one more, to the tedium of our 
readers and the delight of our enemies—necessary, because of two evils, one must 
choose the lesser.” @ 

Splendid. But why is it that Friend Peter, who evinces so much 
Christian tolerance in the Forward and demands the same of us 
towards the tricksters we have exposed—tricksters whom, as we 
shall see, he knows as well as we do,—that he did not even have 
the modicum of tolerance towards the writers of the report to ask 
himself whether they, too, were obliged to choose the lesser of two 
evils? Why must the fire first burn his own fingers before he 
realises that there might be even greater evils than a little harsh 
polemics against people who, in the guise of ostensibly revolution- 
ary activity, were endeavouring to debase and destroy the entire 
European labour movement? 

Let us, however, be indulgent towards Friend Peter; fate has 
been rather hard on him. No sooner has he done, in full 
consciousness of his own guilt, what he reproaches us with doing, 
than Nemesis drives him on and forces him to supply Mr. Karl 
Thaler with new material for several more articles in the Neue 
Freie Presse. 

“Or,” he asks the ever-ready madcap Tkachov, “has your agitation already 
done its work? Is your organisation perhaps ready? Ready? Really ready? Or have 
we here that notorious secret committee of ‘typical’ revolutionaries, the committee 
that consists of two men and circulates decrees?43 Our young people have been 
told so many lies, they have been so often deceived, their trust so shamefully 
abused, that they will not, all at once, believe in the readiness of the revolutionary 

For the Russian reader it is, of course, unnecessary to add that 
the “two men” are Bakunin and Nechayev. Further: 

“But there are those who claim to be friends of the people, supporters of the 

social revolution, and who, at the same time, bring to their activity that 
mendaciousness and dishonesty that I have described above as a belch of the old 

a Ibid., p. 3.— Ed. 
b Ibid., p. 17.— Ed. 

Refugee Literature — III 27 

society.... These people used the bitterness of the supporters of the new social 
order against the injustice of the old society, asserting the principle that, in war, 
every means is allowable. Among these allowable means they included the deception 
of their collaborators, the deception of the people whom they, nevertheless, 
claimed to serve. They were prepared to lie to everyone and anyone solely in order 
to organise a sufficiently strong party, just as if a strong social-revolutionary party 
could be produced without the honest solidarity of its members! They were ready 
to arouse in the people the old passions of banditry and enjoyment without work.... 
They were ready to exploit their friends and comrades, to make them tools of their 
plans; they were ready verbally to defend the most complete independence and 
autonomy of persons and sections, while at the same time organising the most 
pronounced secret dictatorship and training their supporters in the most sheep-like 
and thoughtless obedience, as if the social revolution could be carried out by a 
union of exploiters and exploited, by a group of people whose actions are, at every 
turn, a slap in the face for everything their words preach!” 2 

It is incredible, but true: these lines, which resemble an extract 
from the “Komplott gegen die Internationale” as closely as one 
egg does another, were written by the very man who, a few 
months before, had described that pamphlet as a crime against the 
common cause, because of its attacks on the very same people, 
attacks that were in complete agreement with the above lines. 
Well, Jet us be satisfied with this. 

If, however, we now look back on Mr. Tkachov, with his great 
pretensions and utterly insignificant achievements, and at the little 
malheur that befell our Friend Peter on this occasion, we might 
well consider it our turn to say: 

“We do not know what the authors think of the results 
achieved. The majority of our readers would probably share the 
feeling of ‘amusement’ with which we have read it and with which 
we record these ‘strange’ phenomena in our pages, in pursuance 
of our duty as chroniclers.” 

Joking aside, however. Many peculiar phenomena in the Russian 
movement to date are explained by the fact that, for a long time, 
every Russian publication was a closed book to the West, and that 
it was, therefore, easy for Bakunin and his consorts to conceal 
from it their goings-on, which had long been known to the 
Russians. They zealously spread the assertion that even the dirty 
sides of the Russian movement should—in the interests of the 
movement itself—be kept secret from the West; anyone who 
communicated Russian matters to the rest of Europe, in so far as 
they were of an unpleasant nature, was a traitor. That has now 
ceased. Knowledge of the Russian language—a language that, 
both for its own sake, as one of the richest and most powerful 
living languages, and on account of the literature thereby made 

a Ibid., pp. 44, 45.— Ed. 

accessible, richly deserves study—is no longer a great rarity, at any 
rate among the German Social-Democrats. The Russians will have 
to bow to the inevitable international fate: their movement will 
henceforth develop in full view and under the surveillance of the 
rest of Europe. Nobody has had to pay so dearly for their earlier 
isolation than they themselves. But for this isolation, it would 
never have been possible to cheat them so disgracefully for years 
on end, as Bakunin and his consorts did. Those who will derive 
the greatest benefit from the West’s criticism, from the interna- 
tional interaction of the various West European movements on the 
Russian movement and vice versa, from the eventual fusion of the 
Russian movement with the all-European movement, are the 
Russians themselves. 

LV 44 

The readers of the Volksstaat have suffered a misfortune. Some 
of them may still remember that, in my last article on “refugee 
literature” (Nos. 117 and 118),* I dealt with some passages from 
the Russian periodical Forward and a pamphlet by its editor.” 
Quite by chance I happened to mention a Mr. Peter Tkachov, who 
has published a little pamphlet attacking the aforementioned 
editor,, and with whom I had only concerned myself as little as 
was absolutely necessary. I described him, to judge by the form 
and content of his immortal work, “as a green grammar-school 
boy of singular immaturity, the Karlchen Missnick, as it were, of 
Russian revolutionary youth’* and pitied the editor of the 
Forward for deeming it necessary to bandy words with such an 
adversary. I was soon to learn, however, that the boy Karl is 
beginning to get cross with me“ and entangling me, too, in 
polemics with him. He publishes a pamphlet: Offener Brief an 
Herrn Friedrich Engels by Peter Tkachov, Zurich, typography by 
Tagwacht, 1874. The fact that, in it, I have all sorts of things 
foisted on to me that Mr. Tkachov must know I have never 
maintained would be a matter of indifference to me; but the fact 
that he gives the German workers quite a false picture of the 
situation in Russia, in order to justify the activities of the 
Bakuninists in relation to Russia, makes a reply necessary. 

In his open letter, Mr. Tkachov consistently sets himself up as a 
representative of Russian revolutionary youth. He maintains that I 
“dispensed advice to the Russian revolutionaries ... urging them to 

a See this volume, pp. 19-28.— Ed. 
b Ibid., p. 25.— Ed. 

¢ Ibid., p. 24.— Ed. 

4 Ibid.— Ed. 

€ Ibid., p. 18.— Ed. 

sa, 

enter into an alliance with me (!)’*; at the same time I had 
depicted them, “the representatives of the Russian revolutionary 
party abroad”, their efforts and their literature in the “most 
unfavourable colours to the German labour world”; he says: “You 
express your utter contempt for us Russians because we are so 
‘stupid’ and ‘immature’,” etc. “...“green grammar-school boys’, as 
you please to call us”—and finally there follows the inevitable 
trump-card: “By mocking us you have done our common enemy, 
the Russian state, a valuable service.” I have subjected him, Mr. 
Tkachov claims, “to every conceivable kind of abuse’”’.” 

Now, nobody knows better than Peter Nikitich Tkachov that 
there is not a single grain of truth in all this. First, in the article in 
question, I held no one responsible for Mr. Tkachov’s utterances 
other than Mr. Tkachov himself. It never occurred to me to see 
him as a representative of the Russian revolutionaries. If he 
appoints himself as such, thereby transferring the green grammar- 
school boy and other pleasantries from his shoulders on to theirs, 
then I must definitely protest. Among Russian revolutionary youth 
there are, of course, as everywhere, people of widely differing 
moral and intellectual calibre. Yet its general level, even after 
taking full account of the time difference and the essentially 
different milieu, is undoubtedly still far higher than our German 
student youth has ever attained, even during its best period in the 
early 1830s. Nobody but Mr. Tkachov himself gives him the right 
to speak on behalf of these young people in their entirety. Indeed, 
even though he reveals himself as a true Bakuninist on this 
occasion, I nevertheless doubt at the moment whether he has the 
right to conduct himself as the representative of the small number 
of Russian Bakuninists whom I described as “a few immature little 
students, who inflate themselves with big words like frogs, and 
finally gobble one another up”’.© But even if this were the case, it 
would only be a new version of the old story of the three tailors of 
Tooley Street in London, who issued a proclamation that started, 
“We, the people of England, declare”’ * etc.* Thus, the main point 
that needs to be made is that the “Russian revolutionaries” do not 

* What’s the betting that Mr. Tkachov will say that, with the above anecdote, 
I have betrayed the proletariat by depicting tailors as such in a “ridiculous 
light” 4? 

2 P. Tkatschoff, Offener Brief an Herrn Friedrich Engels... Zurich, 1874, 
p. 3.— Ed. 

b Ibid., pp. 3, 7, 10 and 11.— Ed. 

© See this volume, p. 23.— Ed. 

dP. Tkatschoff, Offener Brief..., p. 10.— Ed 

Refugee Literature.—IV 31 

come into it, now any more than before, and that for Tkachov’s 
“we” it is necessary to substitute “I”, throughout. 

I am supposed to have given him “advice”. I haven’t the faintest 
idea what he is talking about. I may have let fly a few blows, Peter 
Nikitich, but advice*? Be so kind as to furnish proof. 

At the end of my last article, I am supposed to have urged him 
or his ilk to enter into an alliance with me. I will pay Mr. Tkachov 
ten marks in Bismarck’s coin of the realm** if he can demonstrate 
that. 

I am supposed to have maintained that he is “stupid”, and he 
puts the word in quotation marks. Although I would not deny that 
he has hidden his talents—if that is the appropriate word 
here—under a bushel of considerable size in both these works, it 
is Open to anyone to ascertain that the word ‘stupid’ does not 
occur once anywhere in my article. But if all else fails, the 
Bakuninists resort to bogus quotations. 

Further, I am supposed to have “mocked” him and portrayed 
him in a “ridiculous light”. Granted, Mr. Tkachov will never be 
able to force me to take his pamphlet seriously. We Germans are 
widely reputed to be boring, and must have richly deserved this 
reputation on many an occasion. That does not, however, oblige 
us in all circumstances to be as boring and pompous as the 
Bakuninists. The German labour movement has acquired a 
singularly humorous character from its skirmishes with police, 
state prosecutors and prison-warders; why should I deny it? Mr. 
Tkachov has full permission to mock me and depict me in a 
ridiculous light, if he can manage it without imputing any lies to 
me. 

Now the incomparable accusation: by portraying Mr. Tkachov in 
a light befitting him and his works, I have “done our common 
enemy, the Russian state, a valuable service’! Similarly, he says at 
another point: by describing him as I have, I am breaching “the 
basic principles of the programme of the International Working 
Men’s Association”! Here we see the true Bakuninist. These 
gentlemen, as true revolutionaries, shun no means against us, 
particularly in the dark; but if one fails to treat them with the 
greatest respect, if one drags their antics into the light, criticises 
them and their ringing phrases, then one is serving the Tsar of 
Russia and breaching the basic principles of the International. 
Precisely the opposite is the case, in fact. The one who has done 

a In the original a play on the words Schlige (blows) and Ratschlage 
(advice).— Ed. 

the Russian government a service is no other than Mr. Tkachov. If 
the Russian police had any sense, it would spread this gentleman’s 
pamphlet throughout Russia in large numbers. On the one hand, 
it could hardly find a better means of discrediting the Russian 
revolutionaries, whom the writer claims to represent, in the eyes of 
all sensible people. On the other hand, it is always possible that 
some worthy but inexperienced young people would allow it to 
provoke them to rash acts, thus delivering themselves into a trap. 

But, says Mr. Tkachov, I have subjected him to “every 
conceivable kind of abuse”. Now a certain kind of abuse, the 
so-called invective, is one of the most effective forms of rhetoric, 
employed by all great orators when necessary; the most powerful 
English political writer, William Cobbett, possessed a supreme 
command of it that is still admired to this day and serves as an 
unsurpassed model. Mr. Tkachov himself also indulges in a good 
deal of “abuse” in his pamphlet. So, if I had indulged in abuse, 
that would not in itself have been wrong of me at all. But as I did 
not become rhetorical with regard to Mr. Tkachov, as I did not 
take him seriously at all, I cannot have used abuse to attack him. 
Let us examine what I said about him. 

I called him “a green grammar-school boy of singular immaturi- 
ty”. Immaturity may refer to character, mind or knowledge. As 
far as immaturity of character is concerned, I made the following 
addition to Mr. Tkachov’s own account: 

““A Russian scholar, who has a considerable reputation in his 
own country, becomes a refugee and acquires the means to found 
a political journal abroad. Scarcely has he managed to do this, 
when some more or less enthusiastic youth comes along, unasked, 
and offers to take part, on the more or less childish condition that 
he should have an equal voice with the founder of the journal in 
all literary and financial matters. In Germany he would have been 
laughed at.” * 

I hardly think I need adduce any further evidence of 
immaturity of character. Immaturity of mind is sufficiently 
demonstrated by the further quotations from Mr. Tkachov’s 
pamphlet that follow below. As far as knowledge is concerned, the 
dispute between the Forward and Mr. Tkachov largely concerns 
this: the editor of the Forward demands that the Russian 
revolutionary youth should learn something, should enrich them- 
selves with serious and thorough information, should acquire 
critical faculties in accordance with accepted methods, should work 

4 See this volume, p. 24.— Ed. 

Refugee Literature —IV 33 

at their self-development and self-education by the sweat of their 
brow. Tkachov rejects such advice with disgust: 

“Again and again I must express the feeling of profound indignation that it has 
always aroused in me... Learn! Educate yourselves! Oh God, how can a living 
human being say such a thing to another living human being! Wait! Study and 
finish your education! But have we the right to wait” (with revolution to wit)? 
“Have we the right to waste time on education?” (p. 14). ‘““Knowledge is probably a 
necessary precondition for peaceful progress, but it is not necessary at all for the 
revolution” (p. 17).? 

So, if Mr. Tkachov evinces profound indignation at the very 
injunction to study, if he declares all knowledge superfluous for a 
revolutionary, if, in addition, he does not betray even the slightest 
trace of knowledge in his entire pamphlet, he himself writes out 
the testimony to his own immaturity, and I have but ascertained 
the fact. Yet anyone who makes out this testimony himself can, in 
our opinion, aspire at most to the educational level of a 
grammar-school boy. Thus, by attributing the highest possible 
level to him, rather than abusing him, I was perhaps doing him 
even too much credit. 

Furthermore, I said that Mr. Tkachov’s observations were childish 
(for examples of this, see the quotations in this article), tedious 
(surely even the writer himself would not deny this), contradictory 
(as the editor of the Forward has demonstrated) and revolving in 
an eternal circle (which is also true). I then go on to speak of his 
great pretensions (which I have simply related in his own terms) 
and his utterly insignificant achievements (which the present 
article demonstrates more than adequately). Where, then, is all the 
abuse? Surely, it cannot be abuse to compare him with Karlchen 
Missnick, Germany’s favourite grammar-school boy and one of the 
most popular German writers. But stay! Did I not say of him that 
he had retired like Achilles to his tent and from there fired off his 
pamphlet against the Forward?” That must be the crux of the 
matter. In the case of a man whose hackles rise at the mere 
mention of studying, who can boldly take Heine’s words: 

And all his ignorance 

He acquired himself,‘ 
as his motto, I dare say one may assume that it is the first time he 
has come across the name Achilles. And as I link Achilles with 
“tent” and “firing”, perhaps Mr. Tkachov imagines that this 
Achilles is a Russian N.C.O. or a Turkish bashibazouk* and it 

a Tl. Tkayuésn, Sadauu peeonmoyionnott nponazandnr es Pocciu— Ed. 
b See this volume, p. 24.— Ed. 
¢ H. Heine, Kobes L— Ed. 

must, therefore, be a breach of etiquette to call him an Achilles. 
Let me, however, assure Mr. Tkachov that the Achilles of whom I 
speak was the greatest hero of Greek legend, and that the said 
retreat to his tent provided the material for the greatest heroic 
epic of all time, the Iliad, which even Mr. Bakunin will confirm for 
him. If my assumption should be correct I would then, of course, 
be forced to declare that Mr. Tkachov is not a grammar-school 
boy at all. 

Mr. Tkachov goes on to say: 

“Despite all this 1 ventured, however, to express the conviction that the social 
revolution can be easily called into life. ‘If it is so easy to call it into life,’ you 
remark, ‘why do you not do so, instead of talking about it?—It seems to you to be 
ridiculous, childish behaviour... I and those who think as I do are convinced that 
the practicability of the social revolution in Russia presents no problems, that it is 
possible at any moment to induce the Russian people to make a general 
revolutionary protest (!). True, this conviction commits us to a certain amount of 
practical activity, but it does not militate in the least against the usefulness and 
necessity of literary propaganda. It is not enough that we are convinced; we want 
others, too, to share our conviction. The more like-minded comrades we have, the 
stronger we shall feel, the easier it will be for us to achieve a practical solution to 
the task.” 4 

That really does take the cake. It sounds so nice, so sensible, so 
cultivated, so reasonable. It quite sounds as though Mr. Tkachov 
had only written his pamphlet to demonstrate the usefulness of 
literary propaganda, and I, the impatient greenhorn, had ans- 
wered him: “The devil take literary propaganda, let’s get 
cracking!” Now, what is the true state of affairs? 

Mr. Tkachov commences his pamphlet by straightaway giving 
newspaper propaganda (and that is surely the most effective form 
of literary propaganda) a vote of no confidence, saying that one 
should not “expend too much revolutionary energy on it”, for “‘it 
does far more harm through inappropriate use, than it does the 
good through appropriate use”. So enthusiastic is our Tka- 
chov about literary propaganda in general. In_ particular, 
though, if one wishes to engage in such propaganda and recruit 
like-minded comrades, mere rhetoric is no good; one must 
examine causes, and treat the matter theoretically, i.e., in the final 
analysis, scientifically. On this point, Mr. Tkachov tells the editor 
of the Forward: 

“Your philosophical struggle, that purely theoretical, scientific propaganda to 
which your journal is devoted, ... is, from the point of view of the interests of the 
revolutionary party, not merely useless; it is even harmful.” 4 

a P. Tkatschoff, Offener Brief..., pp. 9-10— Ed. 

b Zadauu pesonoyionnoti nponazandm 6s Pocciu— Ed. 

¢ TI. Tkayésp, Zadauu pesomouionnoti nponazander eo Pocciu, p. I1.— Ed. 
4 Ibid., p. 37.— Ed. 

Refugee Literature —IV 35 

It is evident that the more we investigate Mr. Tkachov’s views 
on literary propaganda, the more bogged down we become, and 
the further we are from discovering what he wants. So what does 
he really want? Let us listen to a little more: 

“Do you not realise that the revolutionary always assumes and must assume the 
right to summon the people to revolt; that he differs from philistine philosophers 
in that, without waiting until the course of historical events announces the moment, 
he himself chooses this moment, in that he knows that the people are always ready 
for revolution (p. 10) ... Whoever does not believe in the possibility of the 
revolution in the present does not believe in the people, does not believe in the 
people’s readiness for revolution (p. 11) ... That is why we cannot wait, why we 
maintain that revolution is an urgent necessity in Russia, and particularly necessary 
at the present time; we permit no hesitation, no delay. Now or very late, perhaps 
never (p. 16)! ... Every people exposed to despotism, enslaved by exploiters ... any 
such people (and all peoples are in this position) is by virtue of the very conditions 
of its social order—revolutionary; it is always capable, it is always willing to make 
revolution; it is always ready for revolution (p. 17)... But we cannot and will not 
wait (p. 34)... Now is no time for long, protracted arrangements and eternal 
preparations—let everyone pack his possessions and hasten on his way. The 
question of what is to be done4# must no longer concern us. It has long since been 
settled. It is to make revolution. How? To the best of one’s ability” (p. 39[-40}). 

This seems clear enough to me. So I asked Karlchen Missnick: 
If nothing else will do, if the people are ready for revolution, and 
you are too; if you are simply unwilling and unable to wait any 
longer, and have no right to wait; if you claim the right to choose 
the moment to strike, and if it is, at last, ‘‘now or never!”— well, 
dear Karlchen, do what you cannot refrain from doing, make 
revolution today and smash the Russian state into a thousand 
pieces, otherwise you will end up by bringing about an even 
greater misfortune! 

And what does Karlchen Missnick do? Does he strike? Does he 
destroy the Russian state? Does he liberate the Russian people, 
“this unfortunate people, streaming in blood, with the crown of 
thorns, nailed to the cross of slavery”,’? whose suffering prevents 
him from waiting any longer? . 

Not a bit of it. Karlchen Missnick, with tears of injured 
innocence in his eyes, appears before the German workers saying: 
See what lies that depraved Engels is imputing to me! He claims I 
spoke of striking immediately; yet it is not a question of that, but 
of making literary propaganda, and this Engels, who does nothing 
more himself than make literary propaganda, has the effrontery to 
pretend that he does not understand “the usefulness of literary 
propaganda”.” 

a Ibid., p. 34. Ed. 

b P. Tkatschoff, Offener Brief..., p. 10.— Ed. 

5* 

But stay! Make literary propaganda! But have we the right to 
walt, have we the right to waste time on literary propaganda? 
After all, every minute, every hour the revolution is delayed costs 
the people a thousand victims (p. 14)!* Now is no time for literary 
propaganda; the revolution must be carried out now, or perhaps 
never—we permit no hesitation, no delay. And we are supposed 
to make literary propaganda! Oh God, how can a living human 
being say such a thing to another human being, and this human 
being’s name is Peter Tkachov! 

Was I wrong when I described these impetuous rodomontades, 
now so basely denied, as “childish”? They are so childish that one 
would think the writer had gone as far as was humanly possible in 
this respect. And yet he has since surpassed himself. The editor of 
the Forward quotes a passage from a proclamation to the Russian 
peasants, penned by Mr. Tkachov. In it Mr. Tkachov describes the 
state of affairs after a completed social revolution as follows: 

“And then the peasant would embark on a merry life with song and music ... 
his pockets would be full, not of coppers but of gold ducats. He would have all 
kinds of beasts and poultry in the farmyard, as many as he desired. On the table he 
would have every kind of meat, and festive cakes, and sweet wines, and the table 
would be laid from morn to night. And he would eat and drink as much as his 
belly would hold, but he would work no more than he had a mind to. And there 
would be no one who dared to force him: go, eat!—go, lie down on the stove!”’> 

And the person capable of perpetrating this proclamation 
complains when I confine myself to calling him a green 
grammar-school boy of rare immaturity! 

Mr. Tkachov continues: 

“Why do you reproach us with conspiracies? If we were to renounce 
conspiratorial, secret, underground activities, we would have to renounce all 
revolutionary activity. But you also castigate us for not wanting to depart from our 

conspiratorial ways here in the European West and thus disturbing the great 
international labour movement.” ¢ 

First, it is untrue that the Russian revolutionaries have no other 
means at their disposal than pure conspiracy. Mr. Tkachov himself 
has just stressed the importance of literary propaganda, from 
abroad into Russia! Even within Russia oral propaganda among 
the people themselves, particularly in the cities, can never be quite 
excluded as a method, whatever Mr. Tkachov may find it in his 
interest to say about it. The best proof of this is that, in the latest 

a TI. Tkayéspp, 3adauu pesonrroyionnot. nponaeandor eo Pocciu— Ed. 

6 TI. Aappos, Pyccxoii couianvno-pesonmyionnot morodencu, [London,] 1874, 
p. 47.— Ed. 

¢ P. Tkatschoff, Offener Brief..., p. 7.— Ed. 

Refugee Literature.—IV 37 

mass arrests in Russia, it was not the educated nor the students, 
but the workers who were in the majority.” 

Second, I undertake to fly to the moon, even before Tkachov 
liberates Russia, as soon as he proves that I have ever, anywhere, 
at any time in my political career, declared that conspiracies were 
to be universally condemned in all circumstances. I undertake to 
bring him back a souvenir from the moon as soon as he proves 
that any other plots are mentioned in my article but the one 
against the International by the Alliance. Indeed, if only the 
Russian Bakuninists really were to conspire seriously against the 
Russian Government! If only, instead of fraudulent conspiracies 
based on lies and deceit against their co-conspirators, like that of 
Nechayev,” this “typical representative of our present-day youth” 
according to Tkachov,* instead of plots against the European 
labour movement like the Alliance, fortunately exposed and thus 
destroyed—if only they, the “doers” (dejateli), as they boastfully 
call themselves, would at last, for once, perform a deed proving 
that they really possess an organisation and that they are 
concerned with something else apart from the attempt to form a 
dozen! Instead, they cry out loud to all and sundry: We conspire, 
we conspire! —just like operatic conspirators roaring in four parts: 
“Silence, silence! Make not a sound!”” And all the tales about 
far-reaching conspiracies only serve as a cloak to hide nothing 
more than revolutionary inactivity vis-a-vis governments and 
ambitious cliquishness within the revolutionary party. 

It is precisely our ruthless exposure of this entire fraud in the 
Komplott gegen die Internationale that causes these gentlemen to wax 
so indignant. It was “tactless’”. In exposing Mr. Bakunin we were 
seeking “to besmirch one of the greatest and most selfless 
representatives of the revolutionary epoch in which we live’, and 
with “dirt”, at that. The dirt that came to light on this occasion 
was, to the very last particle, of Mr. Bakunin’s own making, and 
not his worst by any means. The pamphlet in question made him 
out to be far cleaner than he really was. We simply quoted § 18 of 
the “Revolutionary Catechism’, the article stipulating how to 
behave vis-a-vis the Russian aristocracy and bourgeoisie, how “to 
seize hold of their dirty secrets and thereby make them our slaves, 
so that their wealth, etc., becomes an inexhaustible treasure and a 

valuable support in all kinds of undertaking”.*’ We have not yet 

a Tl. Tkauésp, Sadauu pesorouionnoti nponazands: eb Pocciu, [London,] 1874, 
p. 19.— Ed 

b G. Verdi, Rigoletto, Scene II. Libretto by Piave with changes according to 
Victor Hugo’s Le roi s‘amuse.— Ed. 

related how this article has been translated into practice. This is a 
story that would be long in the telling, but it will, in due course, be 
told. 

It thus turns out that all the accusations Mr. Tkachov has made 
against me, with that virtuous mien of injured innocence that * 
becomes all Bakuninists so well, are all based on claims he not only 
knew to be false, but were also a pack of lies that he himself had 
concocted. Whereupon we take our leave of the personal part of 
his “Open Letter”. 

Vv