| Category | Template | Form |
|---|---|---|
| Text | Text | Text |
| Author | Author | Author |
| Collection | Collection | Collection |
| Keywords | Keywords | Keywords |
| Subpage | Subpage | Subpage |
| Template | Form |
|---|---|
| BrowseTexts | BrowseTexts |
| BrowseAuthors | BrowseAuthors |
| BrowseLetters | BrowseLetters |
Template:GalleryAuthorsPreviewSmall
Special pages :
Resolution of Branch No. 1 of the Cologne Workers' Association
| Author(s) | Karl Marx |
|---|---|
| Written | 29 April 1849 |
Published in English for the first time in Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 9
This resolution criticises the sectarian stand taken by Gottschalk. From the very start of the revolution, it was evident that he did not agree with the tactics pursued by Marx and Engels (see Note 413) and, for that reason, he withdrew from the Communist League at the beginning of May 1848.
In July 1848, Gottschalk, together with Anneke and Esser, was arrested and put on trial on a charge of ââŹĹinciting to an armed uprising against royal powerââŹ. The trial was held on December 21-23. Under public pressure, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. After his release, Gottschalk first went to Bonn and later to Paris and Brussels, but through his associates attempted to cause a split in the ranks of the Cologne WorkersââŹâ˘ Association and impose sectarian organisational principles and tactics upon it.
1. Considering that in the newspaper Freiheit, Arbeit Dr. Gottschalk describes Citizen Karl Marx as a friend and co-thinker of Franz Raveaux, deputy of the Assembly in Frankfurt, whereas Citizen Marx stated at the committee meeting of February 8 that, although at present he supported the candidature of Raveaux and Schneider II, he was a long way from agreeing with these persons in principle; that, on the contrary, the first named precisely during the period when he was most prominent was mercilessly attacked in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung; but that at the present moment there could be no question of red democrats and colourless democrats, since for the time being the main thing was to oppose the absolute monarchy, and to achieve this aim both red and colourless democrats would have to unite against the wailers;
2. furthermore, that Dr. Gottschalk took the opportunity of the Democratic Congress in Frankfurt[1] to state that he was able to utilise the Cologne workers just as much for a red monarchy as for a red republic, thus alleging that the workers themselves were merely a machine blindly obedient to him;
3. that the attacks against Raveaux in the above-mentioned newspaper are of a very base, malicious nature because they make his bodily infirmity a subject of reproach and call it a sham;
4. that the other attacks in the newspaper are for the most part wholly without foundation, and owing to their silliness are not even worth refuting, but nevertheless betray petty hatred and spite and the base, malicious character of their author;
5. that Dr. Gottschalk after his acquittal had a plan, about which he spoke to a number of members of the Workersâ Association, to re-organise the Workersâ Association and for this purpose to place himself (as president), together with five others chosen by him as committee members, at the head of the Association, this betrays a despotic frame of mind and conflicts with the most elementary democratic principles;
6. that in attempting to set up such a new organisation he has deserted the party of the real proletarians, and has thrown himself into the arms of the petty bourgeois by desiring to raise the monthly subscriptions of members to five silver groschen;
7. that Dr. Gottschalk made changes in the newspaper of the Association, as a result of which its publication was interrupted for fourteen days,[2] without having been authorised to do so by the Association, in fact without even giving any direct notice of this to the Association or its Executive Committee; this is a violation of the rights of the Association that is totally unjustifiable and because of Dr. Gottschalkâs departure shortly afterwards, it even cannot be defended on the grounds of necessity or urgent reasons;
8. that Dr. Gottschalk, after his acquittal, instead of fulfilling the expectations of the Cologne workers and resuming his previous progressive activity among them, to the astonishment of all went away without saying a single word of farewell to them or thanking them for their loyal support;
9. that Dr. Gottschalk, owing to excessive sensitivity, went into exile of his own accord, and from Brussels he issued a declaration which certainly could not serve in die least to explain or justify his behaviour, since in it he, a republican, speaks of his being called back either by âthe hitherto supreme arbiter in the countryâ or by âthe voice of the peopleâ,[3] therefore considering the supreme arbiter to be something other than the voice of the people as a whole; that by the supreme arbiter in this passage he could only have meant the King,[4] thereby putting himself directly on the side of the legitimists and monarchists; that, on the other hand, in this declaration he once again mocks the people by expecting that it would call back someone who acknowledges and appeals to a supreme arbiter other than the voice of the people itself; that he plays the part here of the most ignoble type of time-server, seeking to keep a path open for himself to both the King and the people;
10. that Dr. Gottschalk has not deigned to give any reply to the request of the Workersâ Association that he should explain his so-called declaration, a declaration which is incomprehensible, and especially that he should state what he understands by âthe hitherto supreme arbiterâ;
11. that Dr. Gottschalk, without being called back by anyone, nevertheless returned to Germany, whereby the whole story of his voluntary banishment is dissipated into thin air and is bound to seem a badly calculated electoral manoeuvre, bearing in mind that in the meantime his brothers and friends have been working very actively for his election to the Berlin Assembly;
Considering all this, branch No. 1 of the Cologne Workersâ Association declares:
that it in no way approves of Dr. Gottschalkâs behaviour after his acquittal by the jury at the trial here, and that it emphatically and indignandy repudiates the imputation that the Workersâ Association would allow itself to be misused in the interests of a red monarchy or misled by spiteful personal attacks on individuals, or permit a president with a subservient committee to be foisted on it, or call back a voluntary exile who, in order to be redeemed, appeals for clemency simultaneously to the King and to the people, or in general to allow any individual whoever he may be, to treat the Workersâ Association as if it consisted of stupid boys.
- â The reference is to the participation of Gottschalk, prior to his arrest, in the First Democratic Congress. It was held in Frankfurt am Main from June 14 to 17, 1848 and attended by delegates of 89 democratic and workersâ associations from different towns in Germany. The congress decided to unite all democratic associations and to set up district committees under the Central Committee of German Democrats. However, due to the weakness and vacillations of the petty-bourgeois leaders, even after the congress the democratic movement in Germany still lacked unity and organisation, and remained ideologically heterogeneous.
- â When the Zeitung des Arbeiter-Vereines zu KĂśln ceased to appear because of police reprisals against the owner of its printing-press, the newspaper Freiheit, BrĂźderlichkeit, Arbeit which began publication on October 26, 1848, became the organ of the Cologne Workersâ Association. At the end of December, as a result of Gottschalkâs interference in the paperâs affairs, its publication was interrupted. From January 14, 1849, the newspaper Freiheit, Arbeit began to appear. Its responsible editor was Prinz, who supported Gottschalk and pursued the latterâs policy of splitting the Cologne Workersâ Association, Prinz refused to submit to the editorial commission which had been appointed at the committee meeting of the Cologne Workersâ Association on January 15 and included Schapper, RĂśser and Reiff; the committee meeting of January 29 resolved, therefore, that the Freiheit, Arbeit could not he regarded as the Associationâs newspaper and that the Freiheit, BrĂźderlichkeit, Arbeit should resume publication with Esser as its editor. The Freiheit, BrĂźderlichkeit, Arbeit reappeared on February 8 and continued publication up to the middle of 1849. The Freiheit, Arbeit continued to appear until June 17, 1849, carrying a variety of insinuations against Marx and Engels.
- â In a declaration written in Brussels on January 9, 1849 and published in the Freiheit, Arbeit on January 18, Gottschalk explained his âvoluntary banishmentâ by the fact that, despite his acquittal, many of his fellow-citizens remained convinced of his guilt. He declared that he would come back only if he was called by âthe hitherto supreme arbiter in the countryâ (an allusion to the King, Frederick William IV), or by âhis fellow-citizensâ, by âthe voice of the peopleâ.
- â Frederick William IV.â Ed.