Text written by Pouget against Jules Guesde, a former anarchist turned Marxist politician, in 1897.
Cover: Marxist politican says, “Where is my backside? Please find me the relevant citation in The State and Revolution whereby I might reconnect it with what passes for my grey matter, thank you. Also did you know leftists who say bad things about getting caught up in party politics are actually fakes? Legit.’
Émile Pouget via machine translation || This pamphlet will not deal with a new phenomenon: it will only clarify some phases of the struggle between the Authoritarians and the Anti-authoritarians , which began some time ago within the International . Since then, only the epithets have changed [1] ; as for the disagreement, it remains entirely intact, as violent as in the time of the Bakuninists and the Marxists .
Instead of recounting the duplicity, lies, and underhanded, Jesuitical maneuvers employed—and still employed—by Marxist leaders, I will simply republish some somewhat dated writings by the most prominent Guesdists —beginning with those of Guesde himself—and place them alongside their recent writings and pronouncements. This simple juxtaposition—without the need for lengthy commentary—will suffice to expose their bad faith.
We will see them as they are: politicians without scruples or conscience, changing their ways according to the interests of the moment and subordinating everything to their personal ambition.
These reversals are not unusual for politicians: throughout history, the petty envy of bourgeois and aristocratic pleasures, the ambition for power, the stupid glory of commanding and dominating, have bred renegades.
Without even going back to Emile Olivier, the republican who became Badingue’s lackey, there are legions of Tolains and Nadauds who have become opportunists. The Guesdists can therefore flatter themselves by being in large company to console themselves for their sordidness.
Karl Marx’s pet project, the conquest of public power , was always antipathetic to the revolutionary proletariat. Instinctively, he saw in this formula a diversion of energy; moreover, the experience of universal suffrage, already convincing at the end of the Empire, showed how illusory it is to attempt a liberating work with the flimsy weapon that is the ballot.
On the other hand, Marx’s centralizing tendencies and dictatorial aspirations did little to lessen the Internationalists’ mistrust. Thus, it was only through constant intrigue that, for a few years, Karl Marx appeared to be the driving force behind the International.
In reality, he was the one who disrupted it: Switzerland, first and foremost, refused to blindly obey Marxist demands. Following its lead, most of the sections in France, Spain, and Italy balked and shook off the yoke.
Then came a hail of calumnies and excommunications from London.
All these authoritarian machinations culminated at the Congress of The Hague in September 1872: the General Council of the International—which desired nothing more than to exist without a Congress!—convened it reluctantly, its hand forced by the Federations. Putting on a brave face in the face of adversity, it managed to secure a majority and succeeded, thanks to the manipulation of mandates. This did not bode well for Marxism: to definitively remove the General Council from federalist and autonomist influences , the only solution found was to move its headquarters from London to New York; on the other hand, its powers were greatly increased—which did not instill in it any new vigor—it suffered the fate of failing governments: they console themselves for their weakness by exaggerating the severity of repressive laws on paper.
This victory of the authoritarians signaled the downfall of the International: the General Council, exiled to New York, was considered a negligible quantity and only the federalist sections survived this strange congress.
As for Karl Marx, his prestige severely damaged, he eked out a living in London, surrounded by his few followers, doing everything he could to recruit new staff.
Jules Guesde was an excellent recruit for Marx.
Before having his Damascus Road experience and becoming the Saint Paul of Marxism, the character flirted with the anarchists.
In November 1871, having taken refuge in Geneva, he was a delegate to the Sonvillier congress where, in response to Marxist excommunications, the foundation of the Jura Federation was decided.
At this congress, Guesde did not play an obscure and insignificant role: he was one of the two secretaries of the congress and, in addition to that, he affixed his signature, as did all the delegates, to the bottom of the Circular to all the federations of the International Workingmen’s Association .
This circular protests against the actions of the General Council of the International, which, instead of being a simple correspondence office between sections, had arrogated to itself an authority that no one had granted it and had become, in effect, an irremovable government. Here, moreover, is the conclusion of this circular :
“We do not blame the intentions of the General Council. The personalities who compose it find themselves the victims of a fatal necessity: they wanted, in good faith and for the triumph of their particular doctrine, to introduce the principle of authority into the International : circumstances seemed to favor this tendency, and it seems quite natural to us that this school, whose ideal is the conquest of political power by the working class , believed that the International , following recent events, should change its primitive organization and transform itself into a hierarchical organization, directed and governed by a Committee.
