to others somewhat unessential to say this so strongly, but not so to us, because the middle-class demand for women’s rights up to the present time still bases its claims on the old nationalistic doctrines of the conception of rights. The middle-class women’s agitation movement still demands Woman Suffrage to-day as a natural right, just as did the speculative philosophers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We, on the contrary, basing our demand on the teachings of economics and of history, advocate the suffrage for women as a social right, which is not based on any natural right, but which rests on social, transient conditions. Certainly in the camp of the Suffragettes it is also understood that the revolution which the capitalist method of production has caused in the position of women, has been of great importance in causing many to agitate for their rights. But this is not given as the most important reason, the tendency is to put this in the background, and, as an illustration of this, I would refer, for example, to the declaration of principles which the middle-class international association for the attainment of Woman Suffrage formulated at its first Congress in Berlin, in June, 1904, when the constitution of the society was drawn up. In this declaration of principles there are stated firstly, secondly, and thirdly, considerations from a purely natural-right point of view, which were inspired from a sentimentalist standpoint due to idealistic considerations, and it will need other grounds of action, other considerations, other ideals if the masses are ever to be reached. It was only when they came to the fourth clause, after talking about the economic revolution of society, that they began to think about the industrial activity of women. But in what connection? There it was stated that Woman Suffrage is required, owing to the increase of wealth, which has been attained by the labours of women. Comrades, I declare that the strongest and greatest demand for women’s rights is not due to the increase of wealth among women, but that it is based on the poverty, on the need, on the misery of the great mass of women. We must reject with all our might this middle-class agitation of women, which is only a renewed idle prattling about national wealth. If you simply argue from the point of view of natural rights, then we should be justified in adapting the words which Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Shylock. We might say, “Hath not a woman eyes? Hath not a woman hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions, fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a _man_ is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?” But, comrades, though these questions might be of momentary use, yet in the struggle