AT LE PERREUX 

London, 1 May 1889 

My dear Lafargue, 
Since my letter of yesterday,*? Bernstein has received the following 
from Liebknecht: 

‘In the present circumstances the congress can be saved only if the 
French act in such a way as to present a fait accompli; they should 
therefore convene the congress—seeing that the Belgian resolution 
has made combined action on the part of members of the Hague 
conference impossible—and without the assent of the Germans, 
Austrians, Swiss (Danes, etc.) which, at this late date, cannot be ascer- 
tained in advance. 

‘It is essential that the congress be convened for precisely the same 
day as that of the Possibilists (14 July) and strictly in accordance with 
the procedure laid down at The Hague, while expressly stating that the 

4 See previous letter 

304 Letters ~ 1889 

date, 14 July, was chosen, not in any spirit of competition with the 
other congress, but in the firm hope that feelings of solidarity would 
compel the two congresses to hold their sittings jointly.’ 

This would be foolish; we, too, anticipate such an outcome, but to say 
so would be to play into the hands of the Possibilists, who would there- 
upon dictate their own conditions. You might, perhaps, say that the two 
congresses, by holding parallel sessions, might themselves resolve all 
their differences. 

‘At the same time, of course, a short exposé of the situation should be 
given, comprising recent events (the congresses at Troyes”? and 
Bordeaux,**! negotiations with a view to achieving a merger, the 
conference, etc.)—but omitting any kind of anti-Possibilist polemic. 

“It should further be said: We would ask working-class and Socialist 
groups in other countries to indicate their assent to our convocation 
address by appending their signatures, there having been no time to 
obtain that assent beforehand. 

‘If there is no fait accompli, there will be no congress; the Belgian 
vote has restored freedom of action to our French friends. Once 
presented with a fait accompli, people will come to the congress.’ 

There you are—that’s Liebknecht all over. He is capable of heroic 
determination, but only after he himself has so clouded the issue that 
nothing else will serve. 

For that matter, I agree with what he says, with the exception of what 
I have noted above. In drawing up your Convocation you cannot be too 
mealy-mouthed, not that this need prevent your saying that the raison- 
d’étre of your congress is the Possibilists’ refusal to recognise the full 
and absolute sovereignty of that congress. 

After Liebknecht’s letter, you have no reason whatever to hesitate. So 
do something, hold your national congresses and, if you can, get all the 
delegates who attend them to go to the international congress that is to 
result therefrom. 

As soon as your circular*!* comes out, we shall begin to agitate, first 
to promote your congress, and next to ensure that those delegates whom 
we cannot prevent from attending the Possibilist congress—Belgians, 
etc.,—be told that they must insist on a merger of the two congresses. 

But now that you have a free hand, don’t hesitate, do not lose a 
moment; if your circular reaches us by Monday, or Tuesday morning 

414 

even, it will go into the Sozialdemokrat and be advertised in the Labour 
Elector. As soon as the date of your congress has been settled, there may 
be something further to be done over here, although the dishonourable 
action of the Belgians has done us untold harm. 

Yours ever, 

EE.