Letter to the Editors of Der Volksstaat, October 20, 1872

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

This letter was published in English for the first time in The Hague Congress of the First International. September 2-7, 1872. Reports and Letters, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1978.

The leading article in No. 84 of the Volksstaat—”Vom Haager Kongress. III”—contains a factual error concerning me which I consider it necessary to rectify, and that, be it noted, only because it has slipped into the Volksstaat. If I considered it worth the trouble to rectify the lies, calumnies, infamy and even involuntary “errors” of the press which is hostile to me, I would not have a minute left for actual work!

The article cited says:

“Lafargue, far from being Marx’s ‘adjutant’, abstained from voting when it was a question of expelling Schwitzguébel, Guillaume’s comrade, although the motion for expulsion was tabled by Marx”

That motion was tabled by the commission of inquiry appointed by the Congress, not by me. What I proposed at the Congress was the expulsion of the Alliance and the appointment of a commission of inquiry for that purpose. I appeared in front of this commission, just like others, as a witness for the prosecution. Only towards the end of the inquiry, at the last moment, and indeed during a sitting of the Congress, was I called upon. Previously, one of the members of the commission had desired a private meeting with me to elucidate purely factual questions. I refused, in order to avoid even the appearance of any personal influence on the commission.

When I was questioned by the commission I did not say a word about Schwitzguébel or his bell-wether, Guillaume. I mentioned only one of the Alliancists attending the Congress and expressed my conviction that either he was not a member of the “secret” Alliance or that in any case he had for a long time been excluded from it.

I voted at the last Congress sitting for Schwitzguébel’s expulsion because the proofs of his membership of the “secret” Alliance were exactly the same as those of Guillaume’s. In these circumstances, Schwitzguébel’s emotional poor-sinner speech could not shake my conviction. Let it be noted in passing that Mr. Guillaume lies—as incidentally every member of a “secret” society is obliged to do — intentionally in the Bulletin jurassienne when he avers that Schwitzguébel had declared solidarity with him. On the contrary. Guillaume stated with great emphasis that Schwitzguébel would stand or fall with him, but Schwitzguébel turned a deaf ear to this cry in extremis! His poor-sinner speech made no mention of Guillaume, and it was this poor-sinner speech that bribed the majority. As a member of the commission for publication of the Congress proceedings I naturally had to go very carefully into the official Minutes of the Congress.

In respect of Lafargue it must be noted that the honest Biedermann is lying when he designates him as delegate for Barcelona. Lafargue was delegated by the Portuguese Federal Council, the New Madrid Federation and also by a Spanish Section.

Karl Marx