First published: in Russian in Under the Banner of Marxism, No, 11-12, 1923.
Source: Gruppa Osvobozhdenia Truda, Ed. L.G. Deutsch, Vol 2, Moscow 1924 pp. 317-322, Letter 5. (available on archive.org as gruppa_osv_truda_iz_arkhivov)
OCR and proof-reading: Zdravko Saveski
Translated by: Graham Seaman for the Marxists Internet Archive
Markup and notes: Graham Seaman.
First uploaded: April 2026
Last updated: 11th April 2026
My dear teacher,
The Krichevsky, Ignatiev, and Comp[any] group is a truly unique group that deserves a detailed description.
Krichevsky has been abroad since 1887. He took no active part at all in the Russian movement. He lived in, I don't recall, some provincial town, where he belonged to one of those circles of young people who occupy themselves with reading revolutionary pamphlets and distributing them if the opportunity arises. However innocent this activity was, it was enough to compromise Krichevsky. He left Russia. At that time, his stock of socialist ideas was very lightweight, and, in particular, of very little worth: he was a Russian populist, that is, half-democrat and half-anarchist. But the man was not without a certain degree of intelligence. He read and studied while abroad. He understood that his "socialism" had nothing in common with modern socialism. He became a social democrat. He was with us for some time. Not very active by temperament, he was also unable to do anything of note due to his position: an emigrant, completely unknown in Russia.
He studied, did translations for socialist newspapers in Germany (he translated almost everything I wrote for the N[eue] Z[eit]; he was even the translator for my Chernyshevsky), and he wrote an article for NZ entitled: "The Russian Revolutionary Movement in the Past and Present" (1890). If you read this article, it must not have made a particularly pleasant impression on you: rather too doctrinaire, and with rather little understanding of the revolutionary side of our movement. Krich[evsky] belongs to that type of Talmudists of socialism who manage to grasp its letter, but never its spirit. He represents that kind of "true" socialist who is indignant at any movement that in any way contradicts the formulas imprinted in his memory. But, since he was never influential, it would have been possible to come to an agreement with him one way or another if he had not met a certain Jogiches, his evil genius, his current inspiration.
And now about Mr. Jogiches (his pseudonyms are: 1. Grozovsky. 2. Levka; he is known by the latter name to Mendelssohn1 and his friends). He left Russia to avoid the unpleasantness of military service. But earlier, before committing this act of de facto antimilitarism, he belonged to a revolutionary group in Vilnius. He, unseen, managed to import several kilos of revolutionary books into Russia; he had connections with Jews over the border—smugglers. His young friends (high school students for the most part) considered him a great conspirator. He readily shared their opinion of him. Perhaps, under different circumstances, he would have acquired some talent for conspiracy. But his misfortune was his boundless vanity and lack of fastidiousness over means. His ideal of a practical man was Nechaev, whose methods are familiar to you. But, for all his limitations, Nechaev did not lack energy, and he managed to pay with his own life. A miniature edition of Nechaev—Jogiches finds energy only for intrigues abroad. In this field, he is tireless, inexhaustible, and, most importantly, impartial. Coming from Vilnius, he speaks Polish and uses this to intrigue among Poles and Russians. Mendelssohn will tell you what he did to damage the Polish movement; I will acquaint you with his deeds and course of action in relation to the Russian movement.
While Jogiches was in Russia, he called himself a Narodnaya Volya member. But even then he realized that Narodnaya Volya was no longer in fashion. Upon arriving abroad, he declared himself a Social Democrat. He sought to become closer to us. We had no desire to push him away. He asked us for advice regarding his future activities. We answered that since he thought he had talent as an organizer, he should go to Russia. — But I don't have a passport. — One will be found. — When all the difficulties had been overcome and it was time to leave, Jogiches announced that he had received 15,000 rubles "for the cause" from one of his friends, and that he considered himself obliged to remain abroad in order to make good use of this money; I think he already had it during his discussions with us (they say that his mother is very rich). Be that as it may, Mr. Jogiches offered us new conditions:
We realized that this man was nothing but a revolutionary careerist, a Streber2, as the Germans say. Our relations became very cold. He, however, gave some money for our publications, but at the very same time waged a silent campaign against us wherever he could. He sought out opportunities to create opposition to us.
The first of these opportunities was the Russian famine.3 We said in our pamphlets and letters sent to Russia that our comrades should make use of the situation to carry out constitutional agitation. Mr. Jogiches treated us as traitors to socialism: "For a true socialist, constitutional agitation has no sense." You can see the depth of his ideas from this. But he did not yet fight us openly; he only threatened us that he would go over to Lavrov's side.4 This did not worry us in the least, especially since Jogiches, in our opinion, was intelligent enough to understand that Lavrov was becoming increasingly isolated, alone. And, indeed, Jogiches did not make this mistake. But he managed to attract Krichevsky to his side, and with him he undertook the publication of the Social Democratic Library. And Krichevsky suddenly became our sworn enemy.
In the meantime, the Zurich Congress arrived. Jogiches, as I have already said, was impartially intriguing both among the Poles and among us; 15 days before the Congress, he founded a Polish socialist journal, Sprawa Robotnica (Workers' Cause), which by the time of the Congress had only published one issue. No matter. He sent a certain Luxemburg as a delegate from the journal. Jogiches' delegate, in company with another "comrade," presented a mendacious and Jesuitical report on the movement in Poland.5 The rest of the Polish delegation rejected her indignantly. She turned to me, saying that she did not want to be with the Poles, but with the Russians, since she was born in Russian Poland and all her friends worked there. Despite the protests of the Polish delegation, the Bureau accepted Mlle Luxemburg. The Poles appealed to the Congress. They voted by nationality: the Bureau's resolution was overridden. I voted with the Polish delegation against admitting Mademoiselle Luxemburg. I could not do otherwise, because by supporting the proposal to destroy the Polish delegation, i.e., by inviting delegates from Russian Poland to join the Russian delegation, delegates from Austrian Poland to join the Austrian delegation, etc., I would be demanding a new partition of Poland; in other words, I would be committing an extraordinary stupidity. Mr. Jogiches took advantage of this second opportunity to disparage me—this time openly—as a traitor to socialism and an ally of bourgeois patriots (these bourgeois are Mendelssohn and his friends); Mr. Krichevsky shouted even louder, and the rupture was complete.
Anyway, citizen Eleanor Marx-Aveling knows the ins and outs of this struggle of the Congress delegates for and against the beautiful Mlle Luxembourg (she went by a different name at the Congress).
On the occasion of the centenary of the Polish revolution of 1794 Jogiches and company thundered against me when he found out that the celebration committee had invited me to give a speech.
Incidentally, it was precisely the intrigues of these gentlemen and Mlle Luxemburg's Polish friends that prompted me to ask, through Bernstein, your opinion on this matter. I thought Mendelssohn had already informed you of what went on in Zurich.
The celebration took place on May 14th. Arriving in Zurich, I learned that several revolutions had happened in the depths of the committee (Polzka nie rzadem stoi6), and that as it turned out the pure patriots (with a more or less Catholic tinge) prevailed. I consulted with several Polish socialists from Zurich. They told me that they would go to the celebration all the same and asked me to go and speak. I did not refuse. In the first half of my speech, I quoted your and Marx's opinions on the Polish question; in the second, I said that, as a Russian, I wholeheartedly support the independence of Poland, because the more order reigns in Warsaw, the more they hang in Petersburg. The "pure" and "true" ones to the taste of Mr. Jogiches were not slow to attack me after my speech, just as they had done before it. But I consider my position impregnable.
But let's return to our question. All the enterprises of Krichevsky and Ignatiev (I don’t know this gentleman; I think that this is a new pseudonym of Jogiches,7 who would like to test himself in the literary field) are directed immediately against us and against the Poles mediated by Mademoiselle Luxembourg. Their purpose is simply to put Jogiches on a pedestal. "We lack popularity," Krichevsky naively told one of my friends. To gain popularity, they translate Marx, and ask you for prefaces. The popularity of these gentlemen will do terrible harm to both the Russian and Polish movements. I am sure you will not want to encourage such a worthless task.
You are surprised that the aforementioned company has produced a new translation of "Wage Labour and Capital." But there's more.
Since the appearance of your pamphlet "Internationales," etc.,8 Vera Zasulich has translated your response to Tkachev and the Nachtrag [Afterword]9. I warned Krichevsky that we would publish this translation. He has made another, which he is now publishing and for which he is asking you for a preface.10 They want to organize anarchy, like that reigning among the Narodnaya Volya, where everyone does what they want.
Ten years ago, Zasulich, having translated "Entwicklung des Socialismus," asked your permission to publish your and Marx's works in Russian. You did not refuse this permission. Zasulich believed she was acting in accordance with this permission by translating "Sociales aus Rusland." But two simultaneous editions make no sense. There's no need to tell you that we would be happy to publish a preface if you were willing to give it to us. I now think I should have written about all this long ago. But you understand the difficulties. It would smack of intrigue, and I hate intrigue. I read my letter to Axelrod. He agrees with it entirely. Zasulich could have further elaborated on the characterization of Jogiches, whom she deeply detests.
Arrests in Russia, unfortunately, are very numerous. Many intellectuals and workers are in prison. But the damage is not irreparable.
I send you my greetings, dear teacher, and request that you give my regards to Bernstein; I thank him for his truly friendly letter. I learn from "N[eue] Z[eit]" that my Chernyshevsky is to appear in German.11 I will take the liberty of sending you a copy.
I have not said anything about Polish affairs in my letter. I will say just one thing: Mendelssohn may have made mistakes there; but it is not Jogiches and company that will save the situation. Axelrod tells me that, to avoid misunderstandings, it should be added that we suggested that Jogiches go to Russia only after he repeatedly expressed his desire to make the trip. Jogiches always expressed utter contempt for revolutionaries who remain abroad unless absolutely necessary.
Greetings from all of us. Yours truly,
G. Plekhanov.
Since I shall remain in Zurich for some time, I ask you to address your reply—if there is one, which we shall await with impatience—to Axelrod, 33 Muhlegasse, Zurich.
16th May 1894
1. Stanislaw and Maria Mendelssohn were leading figures in the newly-formed Polish Socialist Party. They were personal friends of Engels, and he referred this letter to Stanislaw Mendelson to ask his opinion (MECW Vol. 50, letter #177, 22 May 1893). [Return]
2. "Streber" comes from "streben", to strive: someone who tries too hard. [Return]
4. Pyotr Lavrov was still associated with the ideas of Narodnaya Volya, and opposed to Plekhanov's group. His submission to the 1893 Third Congress of the 2nd International was sent in the name of the group of "supporters of the old Narodnaya Volya". [Return]
5. Report to the Second International Socialist Workers' Congress in Zurich [Return]
6. "Poland is in disarray": 17th century poem by Waclaw Potocki, criticizing the disorganization under aristocratic rule in Poland. [Return]
7. J. P. Nettl, Rosa Luxemburg, OUP 1966, Vol. I, p.66, says that Ignatiev was the pseudonym Jogiches used in Switzerland. [Return]
8. Internationales aus dem 'Volkstaat', 1871-75, a collection of articles by Engels republished by him in 1894. [Return]
9. Reply to P.N. Tkachev, 1875, and Afterword to 'On Social Relations in Russia', 1894, both in the 'Internationales' collection. [Return]
10. Engels' response to Krichevsky, refusing him permission to publish his translations and sent following reception of this letter from Plekhanov, is in MECW Vol. 50, letter #175, 24 May 1894, p. 302 [Return]
11. N. G. Tschernischewsky, J. H. W. Dietz, Stuttgart 1894 [Return]