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 :
Address of the British Federal Council to the Sections, Branches, Affiliated Societies and Members of the International Working Men's Association
Author(s) | First International Karl Marx |
---|---|
Written | 20 December 1872 |
First published as a leaflet on December 30-31, 1872
Reproduced from the leaflet
Source: Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 23
This address, like the address of the Manchester Foreign Section written by Engels (see Note 227), was a reply to the reformists' splitting activities in the British Federation. The address, read out by Council member John Mitchell at the meeting of the British Federal Council on December 23, 1872, was unanimously approved by that body, published as a leaflet and sent to the sections.
Citizens,
At our sitting of December 19th, 1872, our attention was called to a Manifesto issued by the representatives of the party of secession in England.[1] We at once took the resolution to forward to every section a notice calling upon them to suspend their judgment thereon until they had our reply before them, which we promised to get out at once, and at a special meeting of the British Federal Council, held on Monday evening, December 23rd, the following was unanimously adopted in reply to the allegations made in the above mentioned Manifesto.
(1). The dead-lock has been caused by the constant introduction of Hales’ personal matter; both he and Mottershead have already, on the General Council, by their mutual charges of corruption, attempted to cause a similar dead-lock there. The dead-lock at the meeting alluded to was caused by Mottershead, being drunk, rendering the dissolution of the meeting necessary, at half-past eleven, by constantly repeating violent personal charges against the Chairman[2]; such dissolution being demanded by none more than by Hales. The members will long ago have seen in The International Herald that the South Lambeth Section withdrew its delegate because the majority obstructed all real business. (2). The real reason of this circular is an understanding between the secessionist minority of the Hague Congress to call all sorts of congresses in all countries about Christmas and to get them to confirm their secessionist action. Thus similar congresses have been called in Belgium and in Spain for the 25th December (against which in Spain there is a strong opposition, getting stronger every day).[3] The English Sections are to be now bamboozled into assisting the plot without knowing what is going on.
(3). The circular now before us has not been laid before the Federal Council. Nothing shows better how its authors feared discussion, than that they concocted it, behind the back of the Council, in a hole and corner meeting. Has it ever been seen before that a majority, instead of outvoting a minority seceded from it? What do the majority want a special Congress for, when a simple vote of the Council which they profess to command, will decide the question in their favour?
(4). The signataries of this circular dare not yet go the full length of the continental secessionists, who plainly state that they repudiate the authority of every Congress except the first held at Geneva. In the mean time, they begin by impugning the validity of the Congress of the Hague, the most International and indeed the first really International Congress of the Association, because it was the first where the majority was not national or even merely local. If that congress was not fairly constituted, why did Citizen Roach who was a member of the Committee for examination of credentials, sign the report of that Committee? Yet he now signs the circular protesting against the Congress.
(5). They say they will stand by the General Rules as they existed prior to the Congress of the Hague. These Rules say, art. 3. “The Congress will have to take the measures required for the successful working of the Association and appoint the General Council of the Society.” Art. 12. “The present Rules may be revised by each Congress provided that two-thirds of the delegates present are in favour of such revision.”[4] The General Rules give no right whatever to any Local or Federal Congresses to revise the resolutions of any General Congress. Therefore the signataries of this circular declare themselves in open revolt not only against the Constitution of the International as fixed by the Congress of the Hague, but also against those General Rules which they declare they will stand by.
Now which are the resolutions of the Hague Congress which are so distasteful to the signataries of the circular?
The first is the resolution about the political action of the Working Class[5] which, they assert, has been passed after the majority of the Delegates had left. This is so far from true, that out of the 64 Delegates who took part in the Congress, 48 took part in the vote on this resolution, and out of these 35, or more than two-thirds, voted for it, amongst whom Citizen Mottershead, who has nevertheless signed the present circular. Moreover, most of the Delegates who had left, had also left with the chairman a written declaration that they were in favour of the resolution.
The resolution itself is nothing but an extract from the resolution No. IX. of the Conference of London, September, 1871, published, along with the other resolutions, by the General Council on the 17th October, 1871,[6] and to which are appended the names of Citizens Bradnick, Mayo, Mottershead, Jung, Roach, and Hales, the latter as general Secretary. This resolution of the Conference quotes the general rules, the Inaugural Address, a Resolution of the Congress of Lausanne, and all the action of the General Council from the beginning, to prove that what it asserts is merely an explanation, in the same sense, of what has always been the officially adopted policy of the Association. Before the Hague Congress, the General Council resolved unanimously to propose to that Congress the introduction of this very resolution into the General Rules; Citizen Jung was acting as secretary that evening, Hales having been suspended.[7] And even the Nottingham Congress, to the resolutions of which the circular refers, as to a precedent, adopted a resolution virtually the same.[8]
As to the pretended turning adrift of Trades Unions by this resolution, the Congress, quite on the contrary, has even gone further than the General Rules or any previous Congress in favour of Trades Unions. It charged the New General Council to constitute an International Bond between the Trades Unions, to admit to it even Trades Unions that do not belong to the International, to invite every Trades Union to state itself the terms upon which it will enter such bond, and to draw up a general plan to be submitted to the provisional acceptance of all Trades Unions adhering, previous to its final sanction by the next Congress.
The next complaint is the removal of the General Council to New York. This amounts simply to the assertion that no General Council upon which Messrs Hales, Mottershead, Jung, Bradnick, Mayo and Roach do not sit, can pretend to represent the International.
Another complaint is that the powers of this General Council have been increased. Now the first resolution to that effect taken at the Hague was the following. “The General Council is bound to execute the Congress Resolutions, and to take care that in every country the principles and the General Rules and Regulations of the International are strictly observed.”[9] This resolution was proposed to the Congress in consequence of a unanimous vote of the late General Council.[10] How could it be put in force if the General Council had not the power to suspend bodies acting within the International, against the International? Besides, the Hague resolutions relating to the right of suspension of Sections, Federal Councils and Federations, have in reality limited the power given by the Congress of Basle (see Administrative Regulation 2, article 6 & 7),[11] and subjected in every case the action of the General Council to a counter check.
Everywhere on the Continent, the governments and the middle-class press are supporting the attempts of the men who try to provoke a secession in the ranks of the Association, while those who cling to the International are everywhere arrested, and their newspapers prosecuted by the police. While the secessionists glory in the assertion, that the International by their exertions is everywhere in a state of dissolution, and in rebellion against the Hague resolutions, the fact is that the Association is stronger than ever, and that the Hague resolutions are fully endorsed in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Portugal, America, Denmark, Poland, and Switzerland, excepting, in the latter country, some 150 secessionists. In Holland, although the delegates of that country voted at the Hague with the minority, a Congress has been held which resolved to remain faithful to the General Council, and to recognise no other General Congress but the regular one of September, 1873, to be held in Switzerland.[12] In Spain where the secessionists expected to carry everything before them, because they had the Federal Council on their side, the opposition against them is growing stronger every day. Even in Italy Sections are continuing to send in their adhesion to the New General Council, and this New English Congress dodge is the last resource the secessionists are driven to.
In reply to the propositions of the circular, we have to submit the following: —
(1). We declare any Congress held in England for the purpose of revising the resolutions passed at the Congress of the Hague to be illegal, because every Federation has the right of objecting at the next General Congress. Further the only legal Congress of the British Federation is the one to be held in Manchester at Whitsuntide next,237 in accordance with the resolution passed at the Nottingham Congress of July, 1872.
(2). We call upon the Sections to revoke the powers given to the subscribers of the circular and to send new delegates to represent them on the Federal Council.
(3). We call upon the Sections to appoint a Committee to which the minutes of the Federal Council will be submitted and who will draw its own conclusions as to who obstructed and who forwarded the work of the Association, and who acted in the interest of the enemies of the working classes.
(4). We call upon the Sections to appoint a commission to inquire into the organisation, number of members and date of establishment of the Sections, and particularly the respective number of delegates they used to send to the Federal Council.
The Sections now being in possession of both Manifestoes, we leave the matter in their hands and only ask that their decision may be communicated to us at once.
But we unhesitatingly affirm that we are acting in accordance with the rules and constitution of the Association, and in the real interest of the working classes.
Long life to the International Working Men’s Association.
F. Hurry, South Lambeth Section,
Chairman
E. Hills, West End Section
F. Lessner, Nottingham Congress, exmember of the General Council, Founder of the I.W.M.A.
W. H. Riley, Nottingham Congress
Ch. Murray, Normanby Section, exmember of the General Council G. Milner, National Reform League, ex-member of the General Council
J. Mitchell, Hinckley Section, Leicestershire
G. A. Weiler, London German Section
S. Vickery, Birkenhead Section
Eugène Dupont, Manchester Section,
ex-member of the General Council,
Founder of the I.W.M.A.
All communications to be sent to Citizen Riley, Editor of The International Herald, 7, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London.
London, December 23rd, 1872
- ↑ To the Branches, Sections and Members of the British Federation of the International Working Men's Association. [Signed:] Hales, J., Bennett, G. [London,] December 10, 1872.— Ed.
- ↑ Samuel Vickery (see also the previous document, pp. 304-06).— Ed.
- ↑ The regular congress of the Belgian Federation of the International took place in Brussels on December 25 and 26, 1872. Influenced by the anarchists, the congress rejected the resolutions of the Hague Congress and supported those of the anarchist congress at Saint-Imier. On the congress of Spanish anarchists in Cordova held from December 25, 1872 to January 2, 1873 see Note 220.
- ↑ Cf. this volume, pp. 4 and 8.— Ed.
- ↑ See this volume, p. 243.— Ed.
- ↑ K. Marx and F. Engels, Resolutions of the Conference of Delegates of the International Working Men's Association Assembled at London from 17th to 23rd September 1871.—Ed.
- ↑ On the General Council’s preparation of a draft of the revised General Rules and Administrative Regulations for submission to the Hague Congress and the proposal (made by Edouard Vaillant) to include into the Rules the resolution of the 1871 London Conference on the political action of the working class see notes 150 and 152. On the suspension of Hales from the post of General Secretary see Note 225.
- ↑ The first congress of the British sections of the International Working Men's Association was held in Nottingham on July 21 and 22, 1872. The congress approved the resolutions of the London Conference of the International and the activities of the General Council. The congress adopted a resolution "On Political Action" which considered it necessary for the working class to wage political struggle for its social emancipation and with this in view to create an independent workers' party. The reformist delegates tried to impose on the congress their narrow interpretation of political action of the working class in the spirit of liberal labour policy, and to distract the general attention from formulating the socialist aims of the working-class movement. They succeeded in having a number of their representatives elected to the British Federal Council.
- ↑ See this volume, p. 244.— Ed
- ↑ This resolution was proposed by Leo Frankel and supported by Engels; it was discussed as an amendment to Article 2, Section II of the Administrative Regulations and adopted at a meeting of the General Council on June 25, 1872.
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 244 and 10.— Ed.
- ↑ On the congress of the Dutch Federation see Note 219.