Letter to Enrico Bignami, October 1, 1872

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

After La Plebe published Engels' articles "The Congress at The Hague" and "Letters from London.— II " (see this volume, pp. 283-84), Enrico Bignami, the editor of the newspaper, wrote to Engels on October 17, 1872: "As you see from the Plebe, I published your reports, which aroused great interest. Costa speaks of them in the Favilla, others in other newspapers."

This article was published in English for the first time in The Hague Congress of the First International. September 2-7, 1872. Reports and Letters, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1978.

London, October 1, 1872

Dear Bignami,

From September 2 to 7, the 64 delegates of the International Working Men’s Association held their sittings at The Hague. Of these delegates 16 represented France; 10, Germany; 7, Belgium; 5, England; 5, America; 4, Holland; 4, Spain; 3, the Romance Federation (Switzerland); 2, the Jura Federation (idem); 1, Ireland; 1, Austria; 1, Hungary; 1, Poland; 1, Portugal; 1, Australia; and 2, Denmark. According to nationalities there were: 20 Frenchmen, 16 Germans, 8 Belgians, 6 Englishmen, 1 Pole, 1 Irishman, 1 Corsican, and 1 Dane.

The verification of the mandates took more than two days. In this form, all the internal questions which had occupied the International since the last Congress were examined, and in almost every case it was a question of the General Council’s activity.

Of the three mandates held by Citizen Lafargue, representing Portugal and two Spanish local federations, one, that of the New Madrid Federation, was contested by the other Spanish delegates. The New Madrid Federation, formed by members of the International arbitrarily expelled from the old federation in violation of the General Rules, had not been recognised by the Spanish Federal Council; it had then applied directly to the General Council in London, which had recognised it.

The Congress unanimously confirmed that decision.

The six delegates whom the General Council had sent, basing itself on the action of previous congresses, and who, by the way, with one exception, were also provided with other mandates, were admitted. The mandate of the delegate sent by the Section of Propaganda and Revolutionary Action of Geneva, a section not recognised by the General Council, was suspended for the whole duration of the Congress, and the section was not recognised. The four delegates of the Spanish Federation were not admitted until they had paid the subscriptions they were owing to the General Council for the year 1871-1872. And finally, the delegate of Section No. 12 of New York, which had been suspended by the General Council, was not admitted to the Congress, despite a speech which lasted more than an hour. All these decisions, adopted by a majority of three quarters of the votes, were at the same time expressions of confidence in the General Council, whose “authoritarian” action (as some are pleased to call it) was entirely approved by the immense majority of the Congress.

After these discussions, which smoothed out many differences which had arisen within the International, and which were therefore by no means without profit, the question of the General Council was posed. Was it necessary to abolish it? In the event of its being preserved, was it to retain its powers, or was it to be reduced to a mere correspondence and statistics bureau, a boîte aux lettres, so to speak? The answer of the Congress left no doubt on this score: Article 2, Section II of the Administrative Regulations was formulated as follows:

“The General Council is bound to execute the Congress resolutions.”

To this the Congress at The Hague added:

“and to take care that in every country the principles and the General Rules and Regulations of the International are strictly observed” (40 votes for this addition, 5 against, and 11 abstentions).

Article 6 of the same section, which confers on the General Council the right to suspend a section, was formulated as follows:

“Article 6. The General Council has also the right to suspend sections, federal councils or committees, and federations of the International, till the meeting of the next Congress.

“Nevertheless, in the case of sections belonging to a federation, the General Council will exercise this right only after having consulted the respective Federal Council [...]

“In the case of the suspension of an entire federation, the General Council shall immediately inform thereof all federations. If the majority of them demand it, the General Council shall convoke an extraordinary conference, composed of one delegate for each nationality, which shall meet within one month and finally decide upon the question.

“Nevertheless, it is well understood that the countries where the International is prohibited shall exercise the same rights as the regular federations.”

It is clear that this new article of the Regulations defining with great clarity the powers of the General Council, contains the necessary guarantees against their abuse.

The Congress declared its will that the General Council should be invested with authority, but responsible. This article was adopted by a majority of 36 votes to 11 with 9 abstentions.

Then came the question of the new General Council. If the General Council, whose powers were on the point of expiring, wished to be re-elected as a whole or partially, it was sure of an almost unanimous vote, since the Belgians and the Dutch had separated from the minority on this question and voted for London. A proof that Marx, Engels, Serraillier, Wroblewski, Dupont, and the other members of the previous Council had by no means demanded wider and better defined powers of the General Council for themselves personally was their motion that the General Council should be transferred to New York, this being the only place, besides London, where the principal conditions were ensured, namely safety of the archives and the international character of the Council’s composition. Of all the proposals moved by the previous Council, this was the only one which encountered any difficulty, since all the delegates, with the exception of the Jura Federation representatives and the Spaniards, agreed to leave the direction of the International in the same hands as it had been before. Only after the most active and well-known members of the previous Council had stated that they declined to be re-elected, was the transfer to New York adopted by a majority vote. The Congress went on to the election of the New Council, which was composed of 2 Irishmen, 1 Swede, 1 Italian, 3 Frenchmen, 1 American, and 4 Germans, with the right to co-opt three other members.

It is known that Resolution IX of the London Conference (September 1871) on the political action of the working class was vigorously opposed as being allegedly contrary to the principles of the International by the Jurassians, some of the Spaniards and the majority of the Italians. Nevertheless, that resolution now constitutes Article 8 of the General Rules of the International, which is as follows:

“Article 8. In its struggle against the collective power of the propertied classes, the proletariat cannot act as a class except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes.

“This constitution of the proletariat into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution, and of its ultimate end, the abolition of classes. The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought, at the same time, to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of its exploiters. The lords of land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defence and perpetuation of their economical monopolies, and for the enslavement of labour. The conquest of political power has therefore become the great duty of the proletariat.”

This resolution was adopted by 28 votes to 13 (counting the abstentions), and as the majority exceeded two-thirds, this resolution has been included in the General Rules. To this majority we must also add the votes of 6 German and 4 French delegates who were obliged to leave The Hague and had left their vote in writing for the resolution; thus abstention from politics was condemned by a majority of three-quarters of the votes to one quarter.

There remained only one important question. The General Council had denounced to the Congress the existence within the International of a secret society directed not against the existing governments, but against our Association itself. The members of this secret society, headed by its founder, Mikhail Bakunin, were divided into three categories according to the degree of their initiation. It set itself the aim of seizing the central leadership of the International, or, failing that, to disorganise it in order thus the better to ensure their own influence. With this objective, slogans on the autonomy of sections and resistance to the “authoritarian” tendencies of the General Council were spread. The Congress appointed a commission to investigate the question of this society, and its report was read out at the closing sitting. The report contained proof of the existence of this secret society and of its hostile character. The report ended with a motion to expel from the International Bakunin, Guillaume, Schwitzguébel, Malon and two others.

The conclusions of this report concerning the Alliance were accepted by the Congress; as for the individuals, Bakunin and Guillaume were expelled, Schwitzguébel was saved by a small minority, and the others were amnestied.

These were the principal decisions of the Hague Congress; they are definite enough, and at the same time extremely moderate. The General Council, supported by a majority of three to one, did its utmost to ensure for the new Council a clear and well defined position, to establish with clarity the political programme of the International which had been placed in doubt by a sectarian minority and to eliminate a secret society which, instead of conspiring against the existing governments, conspired against the International itself. Then the General Council refused to have itself re-elected and had to go to great trouble for its resignation to be accepted.

The majority at the Congress was composed mainly of French, German, Hungarian, Danish, Polish, Portuguese, Irish, Australian and American delegates and the delegates of Romance Switzerland; the minority consisted of Belgians, Dutchmen, Spaniards, the delegates of the Jura Federation, and one American. The English delegates were divided in various ways at the voting. Not once did the minority (including the abstainers) exceed 20 out of 64 delegates; generally it numbered between 12 and 16.

There was one Italian delegate present, the chairman of the federation established at Rimini, but he did not submit his mandate; the Congress would certainly not have accepted it. He attended the sittings as a spectator.

On my return from The Hague, I found in the Mantua Favilla an article signed Atheist which disputed the correctness of the assertion that out of the 21 sections whose delegates signed the Rimini resolution, only one (that of Naples) belonged to the International.

“In saying further that only the Naples section is in order, the Big Council is lying. The Milan workers’ circle, the Girgenti society, that of Ravenna, that of Rome, and the Turin section, which was the initiator, have long since paid the ten centesimi fixed by the General Rules.”

In order to make sure who is lying, the General Council or Mr. Atheist, it is sufficient to note that neither the Milan section nor that of Girgenti, nor that of Turin appear among the signatories of the Rimini resolution, and that the Rome section did not apply to the General Council until after that conference (and I believe it was not the same section which was represented at Rimini).

The Italian Internationals may rest assured that as long as an International, a Congress, a General Council, General Rules and Regulations exist, no section will be recognised by the Congress or by the Council so long as it refuses to recognise the conditions fixed by the General Rules and Regulations, which are the same for all.