THE POLITICAL AWAKENING OF SOCIALISM--THE INTERNATIONAL
With 1848 vanished, more or less rapidly, the revolutions of the old
school. "The street fight and barricade, which up to 1848 was
decisive, now grew antiquated," says Engels.[1] A new species of
plotting and propaganda began. The exiled agitators and revolutionists
met, naturally, in their cities of refuge for the discussion of their
common grievances. They complained that "the proletarian has no
fatherland," and internationalism became their patriotism.
In Paris a few of the ostracized Socialists, in 1836, founded "The
League of the Just," a communistic secret society.[2] The group were
compelled to leave Paris because they were implicated in a riot, and
when some of them met in London they invited other refugees to join
them. Among them was Marx, and his presence soon bore fruit. Their
motto, "All men are brethren," was singularly paradoxical when
contrasted with their methods of sinister conspiracy. Marx, with his
superior intellect, at once began to reshape their ideas, a
reorganization was effected called "The Communist League," and Marx
and Engels were delegated to write a statement of principles for the
League. That statement, written in 1847, they called "The Communist
Manifesto."
The "Manifesto" is the most influential of all Socialist documents. It
is at once a firebrand and a formulary. Its formulae are the well-known
Marxian principles; its energy is the youthful vigor and zeal of
ardent revolutionists. Nearly all the generalizations of _Capital_ are
found in the "Manifesto." This is important, for it gave the sanction
of a social theory to the Socialist movement. Hitherto there had been
only utopian generalizations and keen denunciations of the existing
order. It was of the greatest importance that early in the development
of the movement it was given an economic theory expressed in such
lucid terms, with the gusto of youth, and in the terminology of
science, that it remains to-day the best synopsis of Marx's
"Scientific Socialism."
As a piece of campaign literature it is unexcelled. Combined with its
clearness of statement, its economic reasoning, its terrific
arraignment of modern industrial society, there is a lofty zeal and
power that placed it in the front rank of propagandist literature.
Engels, the surviving partner of the Marxian movement, wrote in the
preface of the edition of 1888:
"The 'Manifesto' being our joint production, I consider myself bound to
say that the fundamental proposition which forms its nucleus belongs to
Marx." That proposition embraced the materialistic theory of social
evolution, that "the whole history of mankind has been a history of
class struggles ... in which nowadays a stage has been reached where
the exploited and oppressed classes--the proletariat--cannot attain
their emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling
classes--the bourgeoisie--without at the same time and once for all
emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class
distinctions, and class struggles."
This liberation was, of course, to be accomplished by revolution. The
"Manifesto" closes with these spirited and oft-quoted words:
"The communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly
declare that their ends can be obtained only by the forcible overthrow
of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling class tremble at a
communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their
chains, they have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite."
This was the language and the spirit of the times. The "Manifesto" was
published only a few days before the February revolution of 1848. For
a moment the ruling class did tremble; but the ill-timed uprisings
were promptly suppressed and the days of reaction set in.
Soon the workingmen of different countries were busy with the
stupendous development of industry which followed in the wake of the
wars and revolutions that had harassed the Continent for over fifty
years. The revival of industry brought a renewal of international
trade. This was followed by a wider exchange of views and greater
international intimacy. In 1862 the first International Exposition was
held.
Before we proceed with the development of the "Old International," as
it is now called, let us notice three points about the "Manifesto."
First, it was not called the "Socialist Manifesto," although adopted
by Socialists the world over. Engels, in his preface of 1888, tells us
why. "When it was written we could not have called it a Socialist
Manifesto. By Socialist, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand,
the adherents of the various Utopian systems; Owenites in England,
Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of
mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most
multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed
to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of
social grievances; in both cases men outside the working-class
movement, and looking rather to the 'educated' classes for support.
Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the
insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the
necessity of a total social change, that portion then called itself
communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of
communism; still it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough
amongst the working class to produce the utopian communism in France
of Cabet, and in Germany of Weitling. This Socialism was, in 1847, a
middle-class movement; communism a working-class movement. Socialism
was, on the Continent at least, 'respectable'; communism was the very
opposite."
It would be interesting to know how Engels would define Socialism
to-day.
Second, it is important for us to know that the "Manifesto" recognized
the necessity of using the government as the instrument for achieving
the new society. "The immediate aim of the communists," it recites,
"is the conquest of political power by the proletariat"; to "labor
everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of
all countries."
The governmental organization of the communists' state was to be
democratic.
Thirdly, a provisional program of such a politico-socio-democratic
party is suggested in the "Manifesto." Its principal points are:
"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents
of land to public purposes.
"2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
"3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
"4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
"5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means
of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
"6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport
in the hands of the state.
"7. Extension of factories and the instruments of production
owned by the state: the bringing into cultivation of waste
lands, and the improvement of the soil generally, in accordance
with a common plan.
"8. Equal liability of all labor. Establishment of industrial
armies, especially for agriculture.
"9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries;
gradual abolition between town and country, by a more equable
distribution of population over the country.
"10. Free education for all children in public schools,
combination of education with industrial production," _etc._
Though the "Manifesto" was written in 1848, neither Marx, who lived
until 1882, nor Engels, who died in 1895, made any alteration in it,
on the ground that it had become "a historical document which we have
no longer any right to alter."[3]
"However much the state of things may have altered during the last
twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in this manifesto
are, on the whole, as correct to-day as ever."[4]
On one very important point, however, they could not refrain from
further comment. The revolutionary language in the original draft
would be radically mollified if written at the time of the joint
preface in 1872. The example of the Paris Commune was disheartening.
It demonstrated that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the
ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes."[5]
These, then, were the principles of the international movement of
which the "Manifesto" was the supreme expression. When labor had
revived from its first stupor, after the hard blows it received in the
years of revolution, the "Manifesto" was translated into several
Continental languages. With the revival of internationalism, it has
been translated into every language of the industrial world, and I am
told a Japanese and a Turkish edition have been issued. This is a
gauge of the spread of international Socialism.
In 1862 a number of French workingmen, visiting the International
Exhibition in London, were entertained by the Socialist exiles, and
the question of reviving an international movement was discussed. Two
years later, in St. Martin's Hall, London, workingmen from various
countries organized a meeting and selected Mazzini, the Italian
patriot, to draw up a constitution. But the South European view of
class war was out of accord with the German and French views, and
Mazzini's proposals were rejected. Marx then undertook the writing of
the address. He succeeded remarkably well in avoiding the giving of
offense to the four different elements present, namely, the trade
unionists of England, who, being Englishmen, were averse to
revolutions; the followers of Proudhon in France, who were then
establishing free co-operative societies; the followers of Lassalle in
Germany and Louis Blanc in France, who glorified state aid in
co-operation; and the less easily satisfied contingent of Mazzini from
Spain and Italy.
Marx's diplomacy and his international vocabulary stood him in good
stead. He began the "Address" by a clever rhetorical parallelism.
Gladstone, whose splendor then filled the political heavens, had just
delivered a great speech in which he had gloried in the wonderful
increase in Britain's trade and wealth. Marx contrasted this growth in
riches with the misery and poverty and wretchedness of the English
working classes. Gladstone's small army of rich bourgeois were
adroitly compared with Marx's large army of miserably poor. The growth
of wealth, he said, brought no amelioration to the needy. But in this
picture of gloom were two points of hope: first, the ten-hour working
day had been achieved through great struggles, and it showed what the
proletarian can do if he persists in fighting for his rights. Second,
Marx alluded to the co-operative achievements of France and Germany as
a proof that the laboring man could organize and carry on great
industries without the intervention of capitalists. With these two
elements of hope before them, the laborers should be of good cheer.
Marx admonished them that they had _numbers_ on their side, and all
that is necessary for complete victory is organization. In closing he
repeats the battle-cry of '48: "Workingmen of all lands, unite!"
The "statutes," or by-laws[6] were also drawn by Marx. The preamble is
a second "Manifesto," in which he reiterates the necessity for
international co-operation among workingmen, and concludes: "The First
International Labor Congress declares that the International
Workingmen's Association, and all societies and individuals belonging
to it, recognize truth, right, and morality as the basis of their
conduct towards one another and their fellowmen, without respect to
color, creed, or nationality. This congress regards it as the duty of
man to demand the rights of a man and citizen, not only for himself,
but for every one who does his duty. No rights without duties, no
duties without rights."
The "Address" and the "Statutes" were adopted by the association at
its first congress, held in Geneva in September, 1866, where sixty
delegates represented the new movement. With the vicissitudes of
Marx's International we are not especially concerned here. It met
annually in various cities until 1873, when its last meeting was held
at Geneva.
Marx had successfully avoided offense to the various elements in his
masterly address and preamble. But the organization contained
irreconcilable elements more or less jealous of one another. The two
extremes were the Anarchists, led by the Russian Bakunin, and the
English labor unions. The Anarchists believed in overthrowing
everything, the English laborists abhorred violence. Between these two
extremes stood Marx's doctrine of evolutionary revolution, as
distasteful to the English as it was despised by the Anarchists.
When the congress met at The Hague, in September, 1872, Marx was one
of the sixty-five delegates. He had hitherto held himself aloof from
the meetings. But here even his magnetic presence could not prevent
the breach with Bakunin.[7] There were stormy scenes. The Anarchists
were expelled, and the seat of the general council was transferred to
New York, where it could die an unobserved death.
Before the final adjournment a meeting was held in Amsterdam. Here
Marx delivered a powerful speech characterized by all the arts of
expression of which he was master. He compared these humble "assizes
of labor" with the royal conferences of "kings and potentates" who in
centuries past had been wont to meet at The Hague "to discuss the
interests of their dynasties." He admitted that in England, the United
States, and maybe in Holland, "the workmen might attain their goal by
peaceful means. But in most European countries force must be the lever
of revolution, and to force they must appeal when the time comes."
These were his last personal words to his International, the
crystallization of his lifelong endeavor to lead the workingmen's
cause. There was one more meeting at Geneva, in 1873; then it
perished.
Bakunin's following, renamed the International Alliance of Social
Democracy, meanwhile went the way of all violent revolutionists. They
took part in the uprisings in Spain in 1873; the rebellion was
promptly suppressed, and the alliance came to an end.
During its brief existence the International was the red bogey-man of
European courts. The most violent and bloodthirsty ambitions were
ascribed to it. Such conservative and careful newspapers as the London
_Times_ indulged in the most extreme editorials and news items about
the sinister organization that was soon to "bathe the thrones of
Europe in blood" and "despoil property of its rights" and "human
society of its blessings."
In the light of history, these fears appear ridiculous. The poor,
struggling organization that could summon scarcely one hundred members
to an international convention was powerful only in the possession of
an idea, the conviction of international solidarity. Its plotting
handful of Anarchists were a great hindrance to it, and the events of
the Commune put the stamp of veracity on the dire things the public
press had foretold of its ambitions.
The programs discussed at the various meetings are of more importance
to us because they reveal whatever was practical in Marx's
organization. For the second meeting, 1866, the following outline was
sent out by the general council from London. It was unquestionably
prepared by Marx himself.
"1. Organization of the International Association; its ends; its
means of action.
"2. Workingmen's societies--their past, present, and future:
stoppage, strikes--means of remedying them; primary and
professional instruction.
"3. Work of women and children in factories, from a moral and
sanitary point of view.
"4. Reduction of working hours--its end, bearing, and moral
consequences; obligation of labor for all.
"5. Association--its principle, its application; co-operation as
distinguished from association proper.
"6. Relation of capital and labor; foreign competition;
commercial treaties.
"7. Direct and indirect taxes.
"8. International institutions--mutual credit, paper money,
weights, measures, coins, and language.
"9. Necessity of abolishing the Russian influence in Europe by
the application of the principle of the right of the people to
govern themselves; and the reconstitution of Poland upon a
democratic and social basis.
"10. Standing armies and their relation to production.
"11. Religious ideas--their influence upon the social,
political, and intellectual movements.
"12. Establishment of a society for mutual help; aid, moral and
material, given to the orphans of the association."
This reads more like the agenda of a sophomore debating society than
the outline of work for an international congress of workingmen. The
discussions of the congress were desultory, quite impractical, and
often tinged with the factional spirit that ultimately ruptured the
association. At its first meeting the discussion of the eight-hour
day, the limitation of work for women and children, and the
establishing of better free schools took a modern turn. But the French
delegates brought forward a proposal to confine the membership in the
association to "hand workers." This was to get rid of Marx and Engels,
who were "brain workers." Socialism was evidently no more clearly
defined then than it is to-day.
Occasionally practical subjects were debated, as the acquiring by the
state of all the means of transportation, of mines, forests, and
land. But their time was largely taken up in the discussion of general
principles, such as "Labor must have its full rights and entire
rewards." Or they resolved, as at Brussels in 1868, that producers
could gain control of machines and factories only through an
indefinite extension of co-operative societies and a system of mutual
credit; or, as at Basle the following year, that society had a right
to abolish private property in land.
It is apparent to any one who reads the reports of their meetings that
very little practical advance had been made since the "Manifesto."
Socialism was still in the vapor of speculation. It had absorbed some
practical aspects from the English unions. These were at first
interested in the International, and at their national conference in
Sheffield, 1868, they even urged the local unions to join it. This
interest waned rapidly as they saw the Continental contingent veer
towards the Commune.
However, the beginnings of a new movement, a "new Socialism," were
distinctly seen in the questions that the English element introduced:
the length of the working day, factory legislation, work of women and
children. These had been the subject of rigid governmental inquiry.
Marx was thoroughly familiar with these parliamentary findings. They
are no small part of the fortifications he built around his theory of
social development. But his German training inclined him to the
Continental, not the Anglo-Saxon, view of social progress and of
politics.
The "Old International," then, was an attempt to spread Marxian
doctrines into all lands. As such an attempt it is noteworthy. The
Marxian _modus_, however, did not fit the world. Some Socialist
writers attribute its failure to the fact that the time was not ripe
for Marx's methods. The time will never be ripe for the Marxian
method. Marx tried to move everything from one center. He was a German
dogmatist. His council was a centralized autocracy, issuing mandates
like a general to an army. This is an impossible method of
international organization. The center must be supported by the
periphery, not the periphery by the center. There could be no
proletarian internationalism until there was an organized proletarian
nationalism.
Its conceptions of its detailed duties were even cruder than its
machinery. The discussions were a blending of pedantic declamation and
phosphoric denunciation. Its programs were a mixture of English
trade-union realities and Continental vagaries. Such a movement had
neither wings nor legs.
But it had an influence, nevertheless, and a very important one. It
was the means of bringing the new generation of leaders together, the
men who were to make Socialism a practical political force. Even the
fact that an international laboring men's society could meet was
important. It realized the central idea of Marx, that the labor
problem is international. That is the important point. Human
solidarity is not ethnic, but inter-ethnic. The "Old International"
was a faltering step toward that solidarity of humanity that has been
advanced so rapidly by inventions, by international arbitrations, by
treaties of commerce, and every other movement that makes
international hostilities every year more difficult.
On Socialism the "International" had at least one beneficial effect.
It cleared its atmosphere of the anarchistic thunder clouds and
prepared the way for the present more practical movement. This was
largely due to the influence of the English trade unions. They were
not inclined toward philosophical dissertations like the Germans, nor
brilliant speculative vagaries like the French. Their stolid forms
were always on the earth. That Marx was anxious for their support is
apparent, and he drove them out of the movement by his indiscreet
utterances on the Parisian Commune of 1871.
The "Old International" was a revival of the "Society of the Just,"
tempered with English trade-unionism and tinged with Anarchism; it was
also a connecting link between the old and the new Socialism.
The characteristics of the "New Socialism" cropped out at the first
meeting of the "New International," as it is called. In the first
place, the co-operative movement and the trade-union movement were
both amply represented at the Paris meetings, where the "New
International" was formed in 1889. This is indicative of the new
direction that the economic phase of Socialism has since taken. In the
second place, the Socialist congress split into two parties,
ostensibly over the question of the credentials of certain delegates,
but really over the question that divides Socialists in all countries
to-day: Shall Socialists co-operate with other political parties or
remain isolated? The Marxian dogmatists believed in isolation; the
opportunists or Possibilists believed in co-operating with other
parties. There were two congresses. The Marxian congress had 221
French delegates and about 175 from other countries. The Possibilist
convention was composed of 91 foreign and 521 French delegates. It was
virtually a labor union convention, for over 225 unions were
represented. It is of great significance that these two meetings,
which divided on a question of political policy, discussed virtually
the same questions. They were against war, believed in collectivism,
demanded international labor legislation, the eight-hour day, the "day
of rest," etc.[8]
Liebknecht, the distinguished German Socialist, who was one of the
chairmen of the Marxian convention, wrote in his preface to the German
edition of the _Proceedings_ that the Paris meeting began a new era,
"and indicated a break with the past." He told the delegates at the
convention, "the Old International lives in us to-day." There was a
continuity of proletarian ambition. In this respect the old movement
was resurrected in the new. But in every other respect the old
movement was dead. The abstractions about property and the rights of
individuals did not interest the new generation. They were more
concerned with wages than wage theories, and in the purchasing power
of their wages than in a theory of values. Even the spirit of the
class consciousness had changed. Marx's organization was the source of
the old; national consciousness was the source of the new. The
present internationalism is the result of nationalism. The delegates
at Paris were representatives; they represented nationalities. One of
the rules of the Marxian congress was that votes should be counted "by
the head," unless a delegation from any country should unanimously
demand "voting by nationalities."
In the twenty years that had elapsed since Bakunin and his
conspiracy-loving following had disrupted the "Old International" by
their preaching of violence against nationalism, labor had increased
with the rapid strides of the increasing industry and commerce of the
world. This labor had organized itself into unions and all manner of
co-operative and protective associations. It had done this by natural
compulsion from within, not by a superimposed force from without. They
had thereby found their national homogeneity, and were ready to go
forward into a great and universal international homogeneity.
The International Workingmen's Association now embraces the labor
movement of all the leading countries of the world. At the last
congress, held in Copenhagen, 1910, reports were received from the
following organizations: the British Labor Party, the Fabian Society,
the Social Democratic Federation of England, the Social Democratic
Party of Germany, the Social Democratic Labor Party of Austria, the
Commission of Trade Unions of Austria, the Social Democratic Labor
Party of Bohemia, the Social Democratic Party of Hungary, the
Socialist Party of France, the Socialist Party of Italy, the
Revolutionary Socialist Party of Russia, the Social Democratic Party
of Lettland, the Social Democratic Party of Finland, the Socialist
Party of Norway, the Social Democratic Labor Party of Sweden, the
Danish Social Democracy, the Social Democratic Party of Holland, the
Belgian Labor Party, the Socialist Labor Party of the United States,
the Social Democratic Party of Servia, and the Bulgarian Laborers'
Social Democratic Party.[9] These names indicate the threefold nature
of the modern movement. It is a labor movement, it is democratic, and
it is Socialistic. And the list of countries shows that it is
international.
At Brussels a permanent International Socialist Bureau is maintained,
with a permanent secretary, who is in constant touch with the movement
in all countries.
There are two directions in which this remarkable co-operation of
millions of workingmen of all lands may have a practical effect on
international affairs.
In the first place, there is an effort being made to internationalize
labor unions. In Europe this has been done, to some extent, among the
transportation workers. They have an international committee of their
own, and keep each other informed of labor conditions and movements.
The great railway strike in England, in the summer of 1911, was
planned on the Continent, as well as in London and Liverpool, and
there was a sympathetic restlessness with the strikers in various
countries adjacent to the Channel that threatened to break out in
violence. During the post-office strike in France the strikers
attempted to persuade English and Belgian railway employees to refuse
to handle French mail. The Syndicalists confidently look forward to
the day when an international labor organization will be able to
compel a universal general strike.
In the second place, the new international organization will have a
far-reaching influence on militarism. This is due to two causes:
first, the recruit himself is filled with the discontent of the
Socialist before he dons the uniform. In France, Germany, Belgium,
Austria, and other countries the anti-military virus has been long at
work. But more potent than this is the feeling of international
solidarity that binds these recruits into a brotherhood of labor who
are unwilling to fight each other for purposes that do not appeal to
the Socialist heart. Warfare, to the laboring man, is merely one phase
of the exploitation of the poor for the benefit of the capitalist, and
patriotism an excuse to hide the real purposes of war. At St. Quentin,
in 1911, the French Socialists denounced the war in Morocco as an
exploitation of human lives for the purposes of capitalistic gain. The
German Social Democracy has always opposed the colonial policy of the
chancellors on the same ground, and the Belgian Labor Party has been
the severest censor of the Belgian Congo campaigns.
During the summer of 1911 the Morocco incident threatened a war
between France and Germany, with England involved, and the other great
powers more than interested. In August and September the situation
became so acute that England and Germany were popularly said to have
been "within two weeks of war." A profound sense of danger and an
intense restlessness possessed the people. During this period of
excitement the French Socialists held anti-war demonstrations. The
German Social Democrats met in their annual convention at Jena and
passed a resolution condemning the German Morocco policy, and Herr
Bebel made a notable speech, detailing the horrors of war with grim
exactness, and arraigning a civilization that would resort to the
"monstrous miseries" of war for gaining a few acres of land. This
speech was quoted at length by the great European dailies, and made a
deep impression upon the people. In England the leaders of the Labor
Party admonished the government that, while they were patriots and
believed in national solidarity, the English workingman would never
cease to consider the German and the French workingman as a
fellow-laborer and brother. The International Socialist Bureau met in
Zurich to discuss the situation and to consider how the organizations
of labor might make their protests against war most effective.
It is difficult to measure the influence of such an international
protest against the powers of governments and of armies. That the
protest was made, that it was sincere, rational and free from the
hyperbola of passion, is the significant fact. Forty years ago such
action on the part of labor would have been ridiculed. To-day it is
respected.
Disarmament, when it comes, will be due to the influences exerted by
the recruit rather than to the benevolent impulses of governments and
commanders.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Introduction to _Klassenkaempfe_, p. 13.
[2] See ENGELS, Introduction to MARX'S _Enthuellungen ueber den
Kommunisten Process zu Koeln_.
[3] Joint-preface of edition of 1872.
[4] _Ibid._
[5] See "Address of the General Council of the Workingmen's
Association on the Civil War in France."
[6] Many of the original documents, and extensive excerpts from others
are given in DR. EUGEN JAeGER'S _Der Moderne Socialismus_, Berlin,
1873, and in DR. R. MEYER'S _Der Emancipations-Kampf des Vierten
Standes_, 2nd edition, Vol. I, Berlin, 1882. Both of these works give
a fairly detailed account of the development of the International and
of its annual meetings.
[7] See _Ein Complot gegen die International Arbeiter Association_, a
compilation of documents and descriptions of Bakunin's organization.
The work was first issued in French and translated into German by S.
Koksky.
[8] The Possibilists declared for an eight-hour day; a day of rest
each week; abolition of night work; abolition of work for women and
children; special protection for children 14-18 years of age; workshop
inspectors elected by the workmen; equal wages for foreign and
domestic labor; a fixed minimum wage; compulsory education; repeal of
the laws against the International.
The Marxian program included: an eight-hour day; children under 14
years forbidden to work, and work confined to six hours a day for
youth 14-18 years of age, except in certain cases; prohibition of work
for women dangerous to their health; 36 hours of continuous rest each
week; abolition of "payment in kind"; abolition of employment bureaus;
inspectors of workshops to be selected by workmen; equal pay for both
sexes; absolute liberty of association.
For the first meeting of the "New International," see WEIL, _Histoire
Internationale de France_, pp. 262 et seq.
[9] See Appendix, p. 340. for list of countries that maintain
Socialist organizations and the political strength of same.