34. K. Marx. Confidential Communication
The Russian Bakunin (although I have known him since 1843, I shall here ignore everything not absolutely necessary for the understanding of what follows) met Marx in London(1) shortly after the foundation of the International. There the latter took him into the Association, for which Bakunin promised to work to the best of his ability. Bakunin went to Italy and received there from Marx the Provisional Rules and Address to the Working Classes^ answered "very enthusiastically" and did nothing. After some years, during which nothing was heard from him, he turned up again in Switzerland. There he joined, not the International, but the League
de la paix et de la liberté.[149] After the congress of this Peace League (Geneva, 1867) Bakunin got on to its Executive Committee, but found opponents there, who not only denied him any "dictatorial" influence, but watched him closely as being "suspect as a Russian". Shortly after the Brussels Congress of the International (September 1868) the Peace League held its congress at Berne. Here Bakunin acted the FIREBRAND and — be it remarked en passant—denounced the occidental bourgeoisie in the tone in which Muscovite optimists are accustomed to attack Western civilisation — to palliate their own barbarism. He proposed a number of resolutions, which, absurd in themselves, were intended to instil fear into the bourgeois cretins and allow Monsieur Bakunin to leave the Peace League and enter the International with éclat. It suffices to note that the programme proposed by Bakunin to the Berne(2) Congress[150] contains such absurdities as the "equality of classes", "abolition of the right of inheritance as the first step of the social revolution", etc.— empty babblings,[3] a garland of ostensibly horrifying hollow fancies, in short an insipid improvisation, calculated purely to make a certain short-lived effect. Bakunin's friends in Paris (where a Russian b has a seat on the editorial board of the Revue Positiviste) and in London proclaim to the world Bakunin's resignation from the Peace League as un événement' and declare his grotesque programme — that olla podrida[6] of outworn platitudes — wonderfully awe-inspiring and original.
Bakunin meanwhile had joined the Branche Romande of the International (in Geneva). It took him years to decide upon this step. But it did not take days for Monsieur Bakunin to decide to transform the International and turn it into an instrument of his own.
Behind the back of the London General Council — which was informed only when everything was apparently already arranged— he founded the so-called Alliance des Démocrates Socialistes.[151] The programme of this society"' was none other than that proposed by Bakunin at the Berne Peace Congress. The society thereby proclaimed itself from the outset as a propaganda society of the specifically Bakuninist cult, and Bakunin himself, one of the most ignorant men in the field of social theory, suddenly appeared here as the founder of a sect. The theoretical programme of this Alliance was however pure farce. The serious aspect of the affair lay in its practical organisation. This society was to be international, with its Central Committee in Geneva, that is, under Bakunin's personal direction. At the same time it was to be an "integral" part of the International Working Men's Association. Its BRANCHES were to be represented at the "next congress" of the International (in Basle) and were at the same time to hold their own congress in separate sittings, side by side with the other, etc., etc.
The human material which at first stood at Bakunin's disposal consisted of the majority at that time of the Comité Fédéral Romand of the International in Geneva. J. Ph. Becker, whose propagandist zeal at times runs away with his head, was pushed forward to the front of the stage. In Italy and Spain Bakunin had a few allies.
The General Council in London was fully informed. However, it let Bakunin proceed undisturbed up to the moment when he found it necessary to send the General Council, through J. Ph. Becker, the Rules (and programme) of the Alliance des Démocrates Socialistes for approval. The General Council answered with a thoroughly reasoned resolution — wholly "judicial" and "objective" in tone, but full of irony in its "considerations"— which concluded as follows:
1. The General Council does not admit the Alliance as a branch of the International.
2. All the paragraphs of the Rules of the Alliance referring to its relations with the International are declared null and void.
The considerations for this resolution demonstrated clearly and forcefully that the Alliance was nothing but an instrument to disorganise the International."[1]
The blow was unexpected. Bakunin had already turned the Égalité, central organ of the French-speaking members of the International in Switzerland, into his own organ, and had, in addition, started at Lode a little private journal of his own, the
Progrès. The Progrès is playing this role up to the present day under the editorship of a fanatical adherent of Bakunin, a certain
Guillaume.
After several weeks' reflection the Central Committee of the Alliance finally sent its answer to the General Council, over the signature of Perron, a Genevese. In its eagerness to serve the good cause, the Alliance was ready to sacrifice its independent organisation, but on one condition — namely, that the General Council declare its recognition of the Alliance's "radical" principles.
The General Council replied: It was not its function to sit in judgment on the theoretic value of the programmes of its various sections. It had only to see that those programmes contained nothing directly contradictory to the letter and spirit of the Rules. It must therefore insist upon the absurd phrase about the égalité des classes being struck from the programme of the Alliance and replaced by the abolition des classes (which was done). For the rest, the Alliance could enter the International after dissolving its own independent international organisation, and supplying the General Council with a list of all its BRANCHES[3] (which, nota bene, was not done).
The incident was therewith closed. Nominally, the Alliance dissolved itself; actually, it remained in existence, under the leadership of Bakunin, who at the same time controlled the Genevese Comité Romand Federal of the International.
To its former press organs were added the Federacion of Barcelona and, after the Basle Congress, the Naples Eguaglianza.
Bakunin now attempted to reach his goal — the transformation of the International into his personal instrument — by other means. Through our Romance Committee at Geneva he proposed to the General Council the inclusion of the "inheritance question" in the agenda of the Basle Congress.b The General Council agreed, in order to be able to deal a direct blow to Bakunin. Bakunin's plan was this: the Basle Congress, in accepting the "principles" (?) put forward by Bakunin at Berne, will show the world that it is not Bakunin who has come over to the International, but the International that has gone over to Bakunin. Obvious result, the London General Council (of whose hostility to the warming up of the vieillerie Saint-Simonistec Bakunin was fully aware) would have to resign and the Basle Congress would transfer the General Council to Geneva, that is, the International would come under the dictatorship of Bakunin.
Bakunin set a complete conspiracy going to secure a majority at the Basle Congress. Even false mandates were not lacking, such as Monsieur Guillaume's mandate for Locle, etc. Bakunin himself begged mandates from Naples and Lyons. Every kind of slander against the General Council was spread abroad. Some were told that élément bourgeois dominated the Council, others that it was the seat of communisme autoritaire, etc.
The results of the Basle Congress are well known. Bakunin's proposals were not accepted and the General Council remained in London.
The annoyance which followed this failure — perhaps Bakunin had based all kinds of private speculations on the assumption of success — found expression in the irritable comments of the Egalité and Progrès. These papers meanwhile were assuming more and more the posture of official oracles. Now one, now another Swiss section of the International was excommunicated because, contrary to Bakunin's explicit instructions, it had taken part in the political movement, etc. Finally the rage against the General Council, so long restrained, broke out openly. The Progrès and Égalité derided, attacked, and declared that the General Council was not fulfilling its duties, for example in regard to the quarterly bulletin; that the General Council must give up its direct control over England and have an English Central Committee established alongside it, to deal with English affairs only; that the resolutions of the General Council on the imprisoned Fenians went beyond its functions, since it should not deal with questions of local politics. Moreover, the Progrès and Égalité took up the cudgels for Schweitzer and categorically demanded that the General Council declare itself officially and publiquement'[1] on the Liebknecht-Schweitzer question. The newspaper Le Travail (in Paris), into which Schweitzer's Paris friends smuggled articles in his favour, was praised on that account by the Progrès and Égalité, the latter calling upon the Travail to make common cause against the General Council.b
The time had now come for action to be taken. What follows is an exact copy of the circular sent by the General Council to the Central Committee of the Romance Federation in Geneva. The document is too long for me to translate into German [original in French].0
The General Council to the Federal Council of Romance Switzerland in Geneva.
At its extraordinary meeting on January 1, 1870, the General Council resolved:
1) We read in the Egalité of December 11, 1869:
"It is certain that the General Council is neglecting extremely important matters.... We remind the General Council of its obligations with Article 1 of the Regulations: 'The General Council is commissioned to carry the resolutions of the Congress into effect'.... We could put enough questions to the General Council for its replies to make up quite a long report. They will, come later. Meanwhile, etc."
The General Council does not know of any article, either in the Rules or in the Regulations, which would oblige it to enter into correspondence or into polemic with the Egalité or to provide "replies" to "questions" of any newspaper whatsoever.
The Federal Council of Romance Switzerland alone represents the branches of Romance Switzerland at the General Council. When the Federal Council addresses requests or reprimands to us through the only legitimate channel, that is to say through its secretary, the General Council will always be ready to reply. But the Romance Federal Council has no right either to abdicate its functions in favour of the Égalité and the Progrès, or to let these newspapers usurp its functions. Generally speaking, the General Council's correspondence with the national and local committees cannot be published without greatly prejudicing the Association's general interests.
Consequently, if other organs of the International were to follow the example of the Progrès and the Égalité, the General Council would be faced with the alternative of either discrediting itself publicly by its silence or violating its obligations by replying publicly. The Égalité joins the Progrès in inviting Le Travail to demand an explanation from the General Council. That is almost a League of Public Welfare.[152]
2) Now, assuming that the questions put by the Egalité come from the Romance Federal Council, we shall reply to them, but only on condition that such questions shall not in the future be communicated to us in the same way.
3) Question of a Bulletin. In the resolutions of the Geneva[3] Congress, which are inserted in the Regulations, it is laid down that the national committees shall send the General Council documents dealing with the proletarian movement0 and that the General Council shall thereupon publish a bulletin in the different languages "as often as its means permit" ("As often as its means permit, the General Council shall publish a report, etc.").c
The General Council's obligation was thus made dependent on conditions that have never been fulfilled. Even the statistical inquiry prescribed by the Rules, ordered by consecutive General Congresses, and demanded yearly by the General Council, has never been made. As far as the means are concerned, the General Council would have long since ceased to exist had it not been for local contributions from England and the personal sacrifices of its members.
Thus, the Regulations passed at the Geneva[3] Congress have remained a dead letter.
As regards the Basle Congress, it did not discuss the fulfilment of an existing regulation. It discussed the possibility of issuing a bulletin in good time and it did not pass any resolution.
For the rest, the General Council believes that the original purpose of such a bulletin is at the moment perfectly fulfilled by the different organs of the International published in the different languages and exchanged among them. It would be absurd to do by costly bulletins what is being done already without any expense. On the other hand, a bulletin which would print what is not contained in the organs of the International would only help our enemies to see behind the scenes.
4) Question of separating the General Council from the Federal Council for England.
Long before the foundation of the Egalité, this proposition was periodically made inside the General Council by one or two of its English members.[153] It was always rejected almost unanimously.
Although revolutionary initiative will probably come from France, England alone can serve as the lever for a serious economic Revolution. It is the only country where there are no more peasants and where landed property is concentrated in a few hands. It is the only country where the capitalist form, that is to say, combined labour on a large scale under capitalist masters, now embraces virtually the whole of production. It is the only country where the great majority of the population consists of WAGES-LABOURERS. It is the only country where the class struggle and the organisation of the working class by the TRADES UNIONS have acquired a certain degree of maturity and universality. It is the only country where, because of its domination on the world market, every revolution in economic matters must immediately affect the whole world. If landlordism and capitalism are classical features in England, on the other hand, the material conditions for their destruction are the most mature here. The General Council now being in the happy position of having its hand directly on this great lever of the proletarian revolution, what folly, we might say even what a crime, to let this lever fall into purely English hands!
The English have all the material necessary for the social revolution. What they lack is the spirit of generalisation and revolutionary ardour. It is only the General Council that can provide them with this, that can thus accelerate the truly revolutionary movement in this country, and consequently everywhere. The great results we have already achieved in this respect are attested to by the most intelligent and influential of the newspapers of the ruling classes, as for example, The Pall Mall Gazette, Saturday Review, The Spectator and The Fortnightly Review, to say nothing of the so-called radicals in the COMMONS and the LORDS who, a little while ago, still exerted a great influence on the leaders of the English workers. They accuse us publicly of having poisoned and almost extinguished the English spirit of the working class and of having pushed it into revolutionary socialism.
The only way to bring about this change is to act like the General Council of the International Association. As the General Council we can initiate measures (for example, the founding of the Land and Labour League*[54]) which later, in the process of their execution, will appear to the public as spontaneous movements of the English working class.
If a Federal Council were formed apart from the General Council, what would be the immediate results? Placed between the General Council of the International and the General Council of TRADES UNIONS,[150] the Federal Council would have no authority whatever. On the other hand, the General Council of the International would lose control of the great lever. If we had preferred the showman's chatter to serious and unostentatious work, we would perhaps have committed the mistake of replying publicly the Égalités question as to why "the General Council permits such a burdensome combination of functions". "
England cannot be treated simply as a country along with other countries. It must be treated as the metropolis of capital.
5) Question of the General Council Resolutions on the Irish Amnesty'[1]
If England is the BULWARK of landlordism and European capitalism, the only point where official England can be struck a great blow is Ireland.
In the first place, Ireland is the BULWARK of English landlordism. If it fell in Ireland, it would fall in England. In Ireland this is a hundred times easier because the economic struggle there is concentrated exclusively on landed property, because this struggle is at the same time national, and because the people there are more revolutionary and more exasperated than in England. Landlordism in Ireland is maintained solely by the English army. The moment the forced Union[156] between the two countries ends, a social revolution will immediately break out in Ireland, though in outmoded forms. English landlordism would not only lose a great source of its wealth, but also its greatest moral force, i. e., that of representing the domination of England over Ireland. On the other hand, by maintaining the power of its landlords in Ireland, the English proletariat makes them invulnerable in England itself.
In the second place, the English bourgeoisie has not only exploited Irish poverty to keep down the working class in England by forced immigration of poor Irishmen, but it has also divided the proletariat into two hostile camps. The revolutionary fire of the Celtic worker does not go well with the solid but slow nature of the Anglo-Saxon worker. On the contrary, in all the big industrial centres in England there is profound antagonism between the Irish proletarian and the English proletarian. The average English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers wages and the STANDARD OF LIFE. He feels national and religious antipathies for him. He regards him somewhat like the POOR WHITES of the Southern States of North America regarded black slaves. This antagonism among the proletarians of England is artificially nourished and kept up by the bourgeoisie. It knows that this scission is the true secret of maintaining its power.
Moreover, this antagonism is reproduced on the other side of the Atlantic. The Irish, chased from their native soil by the bulls and the sheep, reassemble in the United States where they constitute a huge, ever-growing section of the population. Their only thought, their only passion, is hatred for England. The English and American governments — that is to say, the classes they represent — play on these feelings in order to perpetuate the international struggle which prevents any serious and sincere alliance between the working classes on both sides of the Atlantic, and, consequently, their common emancipation.
Ireland is the only pretext the English Government has for retaining a big standing army, which, if need be, as has happened before, can be used against the English workers after having done its military training in Ireland.
Lastly, England today is seeing a repetition of what happened on a monstrous scale in ancient Rome. Any people that oppresses another people forges its own chains.
Thus, the position of the International Association with regard to the Irish question is very clear. Its first concern is to advance the social revolution in England. To this end a great blow must be struck in Ireland.
The General Council's resolutions on the Irish amnesty [3] serve only as an introduction to other resolutions [1 5 7] which will affirm that, quite apart from international justice, it is a precondition to the emancipation of the English working class to transform the present forced Union—i. e., the enslavement of Ireland — into equal and free confederation if possible, into complete separation if need be. For the rest, the doctrines of the Egalité and the Progrès on the CONNEXION, or rather, the NON-CONNEXION, between the social movement and the political movement have never, as far as we know, been recognised by any of our Congresses. They run counter to our Rules. T h e Rules say:
"That the economical emancipation of the working classes is [...] the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a means." h
T h e words "as a means"c were omitted in the French translation made in 1864 by the Paris Committee. 0 When questioned by the General Council, the Paris Committee excused itself by the difficulties of its political situation.
T h e r e are other mutilations of the authentic text of the Rules. Thus, the first clause of the preamble to the Rules reads:
" T h e struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means ... a struggle ... for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class fule."e
The Paris translation has "equal rights and duties", that is it reproduced the general phrase which may be found virtually in all democratic manifestoes of the last hundred years and which means different things in the mouth of different classes, but leaves out the concrete demand: "the abolition of classes".
Further, in the second clause of the preamble to the Rules we read: "That the economical subjection of the man of labour to the monopoliser of the means of labour, that is, the sources of life, etc."
The Paris translation substitutes the word "capital" for "the means of labour, that is, the sources of life", an expression which includes the land as well as the other means of labour.
;1 See this volume, pp. 3-4 and 83.— Ed. b Here and below quotations from the Provisional Rules are given in English in the manuscript (see present edition, Vol. 20, p. 14).— Ed.
1 Marx uses the English phrase and gives the French equivalent "comme moyen" in brackets.— Ed.
(1 Congrès ouvrier. Association Internationale des Travailleurs. Règlement Provisoire [Paris, 1864], p. 1.— Ed.
/ The original authentic text was restored in the French translation published in Brussels in 1866.a
6) Liebknecht-Schweitzer Question. The Egalité writes:
"Both these groups belong to the International". That is incorrect. The Eisenachers' group (which the Progrès and the Égalité would like to turn into Citizen Liebknecht's group) belongs to the International. Schweitzer's group does not belong to it.
Schweitzer himself explained at length in his newspaper, the Social-Dernokrat, why the Lassallean organisation could not join the International without destroying itself.b Without realising it, he was speaking the truth; His artificial sectarian organisation is opposed to the real organisation of the working class.
The Progrès and the Egalité have summoned the General Council to state publicly its "opinion" on the personal differences between Liebknecht and Schweitzer. Since Citizen /. Ph. Becker (who is slandered as much as Liebknecht in Schweitzer's paperc) is a member of the Égalité's editorial board, it seems most strange that its editors are not better informed about the facts. They should have known that Liebknecht, in the Demokratisches Wochenblatt, publicly invited Schweitzer to accept the General Council as arbiter of their differences^ and that Schweitzer no less publicly refused to acknowledge the authority of the General Council.[6]
The General Council has employed all possible means to put an end to this scandal. It instructed its Secretary for Germanyf to correspond with Schweitzer; this has been done, but all attempts by the Council have broken down in the face of Schweitzer's firm resolution to preserve at all cost his autocratic power together with the sectarian organisation.
It is up to the General Council to determine the favourable moment when its public intervention in this quarrel will be more useful than damaging.g
By order of the General Council etc."
The French Committees (although Bakunin had been actively intriguing in Lyons and Marseilles and had won over a few young hotheads), as well as the Conseil Général Belge[3] (Brussels), have fully endorsed this circular of the General Council.
The copy for Geneva was delayed somewhat (because Jung, Secretary for Switzerland, was very busy). It therefore crossed with an official letter from Perret, Secretary of the Central Committee of the Romance Federation in Geneva, to the General Council.[158]
The crisis had broken out in Geneva before the arrival of our letter. Some members of the editorial board of the Egalité had opposed the policy dictated by Bakunin. Bakunin and his followers (including six editors of the Égalité) wanted to force the Geneva Central Committee to dismiss the unruly members. The Geneva Committee, however, had long grown tired of Bakunin's despotism and saw itself with great displeasure being forced by him into opposition to the other German-Swiss Committees, the General Council, etc. It therefore endorsed the attitude of those members of the Égalité editorial board who opposed Bakunin. Thereupon Bakunin's six followers resigned from the editorial board, hoping thereby to put an end to the publication of the paper.b
In answer to our letter the Geneva Central Committee declared ' that the attacks in the Egalité had been made without its approval,
that it had never endorsed the policy preached therein and that in[1]
future the paper would be edited under the strict supervision of the Committee, etc.[159]
Bakunin thereupon retired from Geneva to Ticino. As far as Switzerland is concerned, he now has a say only in the Progrès (Locle).
Shortly afterwards Herzen died. Bakunin, who from the time that he decided to set himself up as director of the European workers' movement had denied his old friend and patron Herzen, hastened to sing his praises immediately after his death.c Why? Herzen, though personally wealthy, allowed the pseudo-socialist, Pan-Slavist party in Russia, which was friendly towards him, to pay him 25,000 francs annually for propaganda. By his paean of praise Bakunin directed this stream of money to himself and—malgré sa haine de l'héritage[6]—thereby entered financially and morally upon the "Herzen heritage" sine beneficio inventarii.e [160] At the same time a COLONY of young Russian REFUGEES settled in Geneva, students whose intentions are really honest and whose sincerity is proved by the adoption of the fight against Pan-Slavism as the chief point of their programme.''
They publish a paper in Geneva called La Cause du Peuple.h
ABOUT two weeks ago they applied to London, sending in their Programme and Statutes,' and requesting permission to form a Russian branch.[161] Permission was given.
In a separate letter to Marx they asked him to represent them provisionally on the General Council. That too was done.d At the same time they indicated — and apparently wished to excuse themselves to Marx on this account — that in the immediate future they would have to expose Bakunin publicly, since the man spoke in two entirely different tongues, one in Russia, another in Europe.[162]
The game of this very dangerous intriguer — at least in the domain of the International—will soon be played out.
Endnotes
[149] See Note 56.
[151] See Note 55.
[152] See Note 119.
[153] See Note 120.
[54] The Democratic Workers' Association (Demokratischer Arbeiterverein) was founded in October 1868 as a result of the split in the Berlin Workers' Association. Wilhelm Eichhoff, who was in constant contact with Marx and was the General Council's Berlin correspondent, played a great part in establishing the Democratic Association. On his proposal, the newly formed Association joined the Nuremberg organisation of workers' associations headed by Bebel and Liebknecht and adopted its programme, which was based on the principles of the International. It maintained ties with the Berlin Section of the International, and almost all its members were also members of the International. To emphasise its proletarian character, two workers — Wilcke and Kämmerer— were elected its Presidents. The Democratic Workers' Association actively opposed the Lassalleans. Wilhelm Liebknecht used to speak at its meetings. In 1869 it joined the Social-Democratic Workers' Party set up at the Eisenach Congress.
[156] T h e reference is to the Anglo-Irish Union of 1801 (see Note 123).
[157] See Note 124.
[158] Marx refers to a letter dated January 4, 1870, from the Romance Federal Council in Geneva to Jung, in which the Council expressed its disagreement with the Egalite's attacks on the General Council. It also wrote that the Alliance of Socialist Democracy had not been admitted to the Romance Federation and that the Alliance's aims had nothing in common with the tasks of the International Working Men's Association. In a private letter of January 4 to Hermann Jung, secretary Henri Perret wrote about the withdrawal of Charles Perron, Paul Robin and other Bakuninists from the Egalite's editorial board. The announcement of their withdrawal was published in the newspaper on January 8, 1870 (No. 2). The letters of the Romance Federal Council were sent from Geneva in reply to Jung's letter of November 1869, before it received the circular letter "The General Council to the Federal Council of Romance Switzerland".
[159] T h e reference is to the official letter of the Romance Federal Council to the General Council of the International of February 3, 1870 read at the General Council meeting on February 8. The Council unanimously agreed that the explanation was satisfactory. p- 113 p- 117 p- 118 p- 119 p- 119 p- 119 p- 121
[160] In 1858 the Russian landowner Pavel Bakhmetev sent Herzen money for propaganda purposes (the so-called Bakhmetev fund). Marx learned about this from Johann Philipp Becker's letter of March 13, 1870. In 1869, under pressure from Bakunin and Ogaryov, Herzen agreed to divide the fund into two parts, one of which Ogaryov sent to Nechayev. After Herzen's death in 1870, Nechayev received the other part from Ogaryov.
[161] See Note 146.
[162] In its letter of March 12, 1870 signed by Utin, Neto\ (Baitenev) and Trusov, the Committee of the Russian Section asked Marx to represent them in the General Council of the International. It also stated that the section's members had decidedly broken off their ties with Bakunin and intended "in the immediate future to expose this man publicly", as he was deluding the "world of the working people".
[150] At the Second Congress of the League of Peace and Freedom (Berne, September 21-25, 1868), the second item on the agenda was "the relation of the economic and social question to the question of peace and freedom". By a majority vote the congress rejected the resolution proposed by Bakunin which declared the necessity for "economic and social equalisation of classes and individuals", the "abolition of the state" and the "liquidation of the right of inheritance". Having found no support- at the congress, Bakunin and his followers withdrew from the League and in the same year established the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy (see Note 55) whose programme was based on the above-mentioned proposals by Bakunin'.
[3] Marx wrote this item on the basis of a letter from Johann Baptist Schweitzer dated April 29, 1868. The item was included in the report of the General Council meeting of May 12, 1868 published in The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 344, May 16, 1868, but is not to be found in the Minute Book. Informing Engels of Schweitzer's letter, Marx wrote to him on May 4, 1868 that he intended "to use this question in the interests of the Party", and insisted on an inquiry into the condition of the workers employed in the iron trade of the Rhine Province (see this letter and Marx's letter to Engels of May 7 and the latter's reply of May 6-7, 1868, present edition, Vol. 43).
[6] " The public meeting to celebrate the anniversary of the June 1848 insurrection of the Paris workers was held on June 29, 1868 in the Cleveland Hall, London. Such meetings were annually held by the German Workers' Educational Society in London jointly with other émigré organisations. The French petty-bourgeois democrat Félix Pyat, who attended the meeting, delivered a speech and moved a provocative resolution urging terroristic acts against Napoleon III (the resolution was published in The Bee-Hive, No. 351, July 4, 1868). The Brussels Espiègle, No. 25, July 5, 1868, published a report of the meeting which described it as a meeting of the International with Pyat as one of its leaders. This statement was repeated in other newspapers. The General Council held that this could discredit the International in the eyes of the workers and give the Bonapartist government a pretext for the persecution of its members in France and Belgium. Consequently, at its meeting on July 7 the Council resolved, on Marx's proposal, to disavow Pyat's behaviour in a resolution to this effect (see also Marx's letter to Engels of July 7, 1868, present edition, Vol. 43). When the General Council's resolution against Pyat appeared in the press, a split took place in the French Section in London, of which he was a member. Eugène Dupont, Hermann Jung, Paul Lafargue and other proletarian members of the section expressed their disapproval of Pyat's adventurous and provocative tactics and withdrew from it. Pyat's group lost ties with the International but continued to act in its name and repeatedly supported anti-proletarian elements opposing Marx's line in the General Council. On May 10, 1870, the General Council officially dissociated itself from this group (see this volume, pp. 127-28). The text of this resolution has been preserved in the Minutes of the General Council meeting of July 7, 1868. It was first published in La Liberté, No. 55, July 12, 1868 and reproduced in La Cigale, No. 29, July 19, La Tribune du Peuple, No. 7, July 26, 1868 (with the end of the resolution denying Pyat's connections with the International omitted), and in other newspapers. This resolution was first published in English in The General Council of the First International. 1866-1868, Moscow, 1964.
[1] In the autumn of 1867 the General Council of the International Working Men's Association launched a widespread campaign among the English workers in support of the Irish national liberation movement led by the Fenians. The memorial written by Marx was an integral part of this campaign. The Fenians were Irish revolutionaries who named themselves after the "Féne"— a name of the ancient population of Ireland. Their first organisations appeared in the 1850s in the USA among the Irish immigrants and later in Ireland itself. The secret Irish Revolutionary Brotherhood, as the organisation was known in the early 1860s, aimed at establishing an independent Irish republic by means of an armed uprising. The Fenians, who expressed the interests of the Irish peasantry, came chiefly from the urban petty bourgeoisie and intelligentsia and believed in conspiracy tactics. The British Government attempted to suppress the Fenian movement by severe police reprisals. On September 18, 1867, the Fenians made an armed attack on a prison van in an attempt to liberate Kelly and Deasy, two of their leaders. The latter managed to escape but a policeman was killed during the clash. Five Irishmen (Maguire, Condon, Larkin, Allen and O'Brien) were charged with murder and brought to trial. Although there was no direct evidence, they were sentenced to death. Maguire was subsequently pardoned, and Condon, as an American citizen, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment. The others were executed. The Fenian trial in Manchester aroused a storm of protest in Ireland and England. On the insistence of Marx, the General Council of the International began, on November 19, a discussion on the Irish question during which the leaders of the international proletarian organisation expressed their solidarity with the struggle of the Irish people for independence and condemned the position of the reformist trade union leaders who, in the wake of the English bourgeois radicals, denied the right of the Fenians to resort to revolutionary methods in the struggle. The discussion was scheduled to continue on November 26 (see this volume, pp. 189-93), but when the news of the conviction was received, the General Council convened a special meeting on November 20 and addressed a memorial to the Home Secretary asking for the commutation of the death sentence. The British Government ignored the memorial. Because of opposition from the trade union leaders, the English labour press did not publish the memorial in its original wording. A report on the special meeting of the General Council, published in The Bee-Hive, No. 319, November 23, 1867, only summarised it, and named the General Council members who had signed it. The French translation was published by Le Courrier français, No. 163, November 24. In English the memorial was first published in full in The General Council of the First International. 1866-1868, Moscow, 1964. This document is also preserved in the form of the manuscript copy made by Mrs. Marx which fully coincides with the text entered into the Minute Book. Written as an article, this copy was apparently to be sent to the press. In this volume the memorial is reproduced from this copy.