On the Hague Congress of the International

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

A series of articles on the Hague Congress of the International for Der Volksstaat was to be written by one of its editors, Adolf Hepner, who was a delegate to the Congress. The first article was published on September 25, 1872. Soon Hepner was arrested and the editors asked two other delegates, Engels and Fritz Milke, a printer, to write reports on the Congress for them. Both complied with the request. Engels' report was published in the newspaper as the second article of the series with the following editorial note: "Article II is not written by the author of Article I. When, owing to the arrest of our correspondent, we were unable to receive some of his papers—which was also the reason for our reports appearing so late—we asked two other participants in the Congress for reports. When the two reports arrived, Hepnefs papers relating to the Congress were also found and so we are in a position to present our readers with a choice of three different reports." Der Volksstaat published Milke's article and the beginning of Engels' article in the same issue on September 28 and Hepner's material, as the continuation of the series, i.e. as articles III and IV, on October 19, November 6, 13 and 27, 1872. Engels' article was published in the newspaper on September 28 and October 9; at the end of the first instalment the editors noted: "The end of Article II in the next issue", and the concluding part had the editorial heading: "The Hague Congress (End of Article II)".

The minor differences between the resolutions quoted by Engels and their official version are due to the fact that when Engels wrote the article there was no official text of the resolutions, adopted by the editorial committee on October 21.

The 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.

[Der Volksstaat, No. 78, September 28, 1872]

The Congress comprised 64 delegates, sixteen of whom represented France, ten Germany, seven Belgium, five England, five North America, four Holland, four Spain, three the Romance Federation of Switzerland, two the Jura Federation of Switzerland, one Ireland, one Portugal, one Poland, one Austria, one Hungary, one Australia, and two Denmark. A number of them held mandates from two or three countries, so that the distribution given above is not quite accurate. According to their country of origin twenty of them were French, sixteen Germans, eight Belgians, six English, three Dutch, three Spanish, two Swiss, two Hungarian, one Polish, one Irish, one Danish, one Corsican. “ At no previous congress had so many nations been represented.

The verification of the mandates took nearly three days. The reason for this was that the affiliation of various Sections to the International was disputed. Thus No. 2 (French) Section of New York, which after taking part in the last congress of the American Federation subsequently opposed its decisions, was therefore expelled from the Federation by the American Federal Council. As it had not been recognised since then as an independent section by the General Council and its exclusion from the Congress had not been opposed, its delegate could not be admitted or its mandate acknowledged. (Administrative Regulations II, Articles 5, 6; IV, Article 4.)

The opposite was the case with the credentials of the New Madrid Federation. This comprised a number of workers who had been expelled from the old Madrid Federation under all sorts of pretexts and in flagrant violation of the local Rules. The real reason was that they had accused the secret society “The Alliance of Socialist Democracy” organised within the Spanish International of betraying the International. They consequently organised themselves into the New Madrid Federation and applied to the Spanish Federal Council for recognition. The Federal Council, adhering in the majority if not entirely to the Alliance, refused. The General Council, to whom they then applied, having recognised them as an independent Federation, they sent their delegate, whose credentials were disputed by the delegates of the Spanish Federation. In this case the General Council disregarded the prescriptions of the Administrative Regulations (II, 5), according to which it ought to have consulted the Spanish Federal Council before admitting the New Madrid Federation; it did not do this because, on the one hand, there was danger in delay, and secondly because the Spanish Federal Council had placed itself in rebellion against the International by openly siding with the Alliance.

The Congress approved the General Council’s way of acting by a large majority, nobody voting against, and thus the New Madrid Federation was recognised.

A similar question arose in respect of the credentials of the Geneva “Section of Revolutionary Propaganda”, which the General Council, on the request of the Geneva Romance Federal Committee, had not recognised. The credentials, and with them the whole section, remained suspended until the end of the Congress, and as the case could not be settled for lack of time, the section is still suspended.

The General Council’s right to be represented by six delegates as at previous congresses was recognised after weak objections.

The four delegates of the Spanish Federation, who had not sent any subscriptions for the past accounting year, were not admitted until the subscriptions had been paid.

Finally, the delegate of the American Section No. 12, the one which caused all the scandal in New York (as related earlier in Der Volksstaat), was unanimously rejected after pleading a long time for Section No. 12, and accordingly Section No. 12 ultimately finds itself outside the International.

We see that under the form of verifying the mandates nearly all the practical questions which had occupied the International for a year were examined and settled. By a majority of from 38 to 45 against a minority of from 12 to 20, who mostly abstained altogether from voting, every single action of the General Council was approved by the Congress and it was given one vote of confidence after another.

An Italian delegate had also arrived, Signor Cafiero, chairman of the Rimini conference at which on August 6 twenty-one sections (twenty of which have not fulfilled a single one of the conditions laid down by the Rules for their admission and hence do not belong to the International) adopted a decision to break off all solidarity with the General Council and to hold a congress of like-minded sections on September 2, not at The Hague, but at Neuchâtel in Switzerland.

They apparently changed their minds and Signor Cafiero came to The Hague, but he was reasonable enough to keep his mandate in his pocket and to attend the Congress as an onlooker, relying on his membership card.

At the very first vote—the election of the commission to verify the mandates—the assembly split into a majority and a minority which, with few exceptions, remained a solid body till the end. France, Germany, America, Poland, Denmark, Ireland, Austria, Hungary, Portugal, the Romance Federation of Switzerland, and Australia formed the majority. Belgium, the Spanish and the Jura Federation, Holland, one French and one American delegate formed the minority, which on most questions abstained entirely or in part from voting. The English delegates voted dividedly and unevenly. The core of the majority was formed by the Germans and the French, who held together as though the great military, government and state actions of the year 1870 had never occurred. The unanimity of the German and French workers was sealed on the second anniversary of the capitulation at Sedan—a lesson for Bismarck no less than for Thiers!

When the matter of the mandates had been settled, came the first urgent question—the position of the General Council. The first debate at the public sitting on the Wednesday evening already proved that there could be no talk of its abolition. The high-sounding phrases about free federation, autonomy of sections and so on died away ineffectively before the compact majority who were obviously determined not to let the International develop into a plaything. The delegates of those countries where the International has to wage a real struggle against the state power, that is to say those who take the International most seriously, the Germans, French, Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Portuguese and Irish, were of the view that the General Council should have definite powers and should not be reduced to a mere “post-box”, a “correspondence and statistics bureau” as the minority demanded.

Accordingly, to Article 2, Section II of the Administrative Regulations, which reads:

“The General Council is bound to execute the Congress Resolutions”,

was added the following, adopted by 40 votes for to 5 against and 4 abstentions: “and to take care that the basic principles and the General Rules and Regulations of the International are strictly observed”.

And Article 6 of the same section:

“The General Council has also the right to suspend any Section from the International till the next Congress” will henceforth read:

“The General Council has the right to suspend a Section, a Federal Council, or a Federal Committee and a whole Federation.

“Nevertheless, in the case of Sections belonging to a Federation, the General Council shall consult the respective Federal Council.

“In the case of the dissolution of a Federal Council, the General Council shall arrange the election of a new Federal Council within 30 days at most.

“In the case of the suspension of an entire Federation, the General Council shall inform thereof the whole of the 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.” (36 for, 11 against, 9 abstentions.)

Thus the position of the General Council, which according to the previous Rules and Congress resolutions could have been doubtful, was made sufficiently clear. The General Council is the Association’s executive committee, and as such has definite powers in respect of the Sections and Federations. These powers have not been really extended by the above-quoted decisions, they have only been formulated better and provided with such guarantees as will never allow the General Council to lose awareness of its responsibility. After this resolution there can be less talk of dictatorship of the General Council than ever before.

The introduction of these two articles into the Administrative Regulations satisfied the most urgent requirement. Owing to the short time available a detailed revision of the General Rules was dispensed with. Nevertheless, in this respect there still remained an important point to be discussed. Serious differences had arisen over the programme as regards the political activity of the working class. In the Jura Federation of Switzerland, in Spain and in Italy the Bakuninist sect had preached absolute abstention from all political activity, in particular from all elections, as a principle of the International. This misunderstanding had been removed by Resolution IX of the London Conference in September 1871; on the other hand, the Bakuninists had decried this resolution too, as exceeding the powers of the conference. The Congress clarified the matter once more by adopting the London Conference resolution by a two-thirds majority in the following formulation:

“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 (including abstentions). Moreover, four French and six German delegates who had had to leave earlier had handed in their votes in writing for the new articles of the General Rules, so that the real majority amounted to 38.

This resolution has made it impossible for the abstentionists to spread the delusion that abstention from all elections and all political activity is a principle of the International. If this sect, the same one which from the very beginning has caused all the discords in the International, now finds it compatible with its principles to remain in the International, that is its business; certainly nobody will try to keep it in.

The next point was the election of the new General Council. The majority of the previous General Council — Marx, Engels, Serraillier, Dupont, Wröblewski, MacDonnell and others — moved that the General Council should be transferred to New York and the eight members of the American Federal Council appointed to it and that the American Federation should add another seven. The reason for this proposal was that most active members of the previous General Council had been obliged recently to devote all their time to the International, but were no longer in a position to do so. Marx and Engels had already informed their friends months earlier that it was possible for them to pursue their scientific work only on the condition that they retired from the General Council.

Others had similar motives. As a result, the General Council, if it were to remain in London, would be deprived of those very members who had so far been doing all the actual work, both the correspondence and the literary work. And then there were two elements in London both striving to gain the upper hand in the General Council, and in such conditions they would probably have done so.

One of these elements consisted of the French Blanquists (who, it is true, had never been recognised by Blanqui), a small coterie who replaced discernment of the real course of the movement with revolutionary talk, and propaganda activity with petty spurious conspiracy leading only to useless arrests. To hand over the leadership of the International in France to these people would mean senselessly throwing our people there into prison and disorganising again the thirty départements in which the International is flourishing. There were enough opportunities at the Congress itself for people to become convinced that the Internationals in France would put up with anything rather than the domination of these gentlemen.

The second dangerous element in London comprised those English working-class leaders in whose face Marx at the Congress had flung the words: it is a disgrace to be amopg these English working-class leaders, for almost all of them have sold themselves to Sir Charles Dilke, Samuel Morley, or even Gladstone. These men, who have so far been kept down or outside by the compact Franco-German majority in the General Council, would now play quite a different role, and the activity of the International in England would not only come under the control of the bourgeois radicals, but probably even under the control of the government.

A transfer was therefore necessary, and once this was recognised, New York was the only place which combined the two necessary conditions: security for the Association’s archives and an international composition of the General Council itself. It took some pains to carry this transfer through; this time the Belgians separated from the minority and voted for London, and the Germans in particular insisted on London. Nevertheless, after several votings the transfer to New York was decided and the following twelve members of the General Council were appointed, with the right to increase the number to fifteen: Kavanagh and Saint Clair (Irishmen), Laurel (a Swede), Fornaccieri (an Italian), David, Levièle, Dereure (Frenchmen), Boite, Bertrand, Carl, Speyer (Germans), and Ward (an American).

It was further decided to hold the next Congress in Switzerland and to leave it to the General Council to determine the place.

[Der Volksstaat, No. 81, October 9, 1872]

After the election of the new General Council, Lafargue, in the name of the two Federations he represented, the Portuguese and the New Madrid Federation, tabled the following motion, which was adopted unanimously:

“The new General Council is entrusted with the special mission to establish International trades unions.

“For this purpose it will, within the month following this Congress, draw up a circular which it shall have printed and send to all the working-men’s societies whose addresses it possesses, whether they are affiliated to the International or not.

“In this circular it shall call upon the working-men’s societies to establish an International trades union for their respective trades.

“Every society shall also be invited to fix itself the conditions under which it wishes to enter the International Union of its trade.

“The General Council is directed to collect all the conditions proposed by the working-men’s societies which have accepted the idea and to work them up into general draft Rules which will be submitted for provisional acceptance to all the societies wishing to join.

“The next Congress will finally confirm this agreement in due form.”

In this way from the very beginning the new General Council was set an important task in practical organisation the solution of which might well alone suffice to give the allegedly dead International a hitherto unknown upswing.

Finally came the question of the “Alliance”. After working for a long time the commission which had to prepare this point for the Congress at last had its report ready on Saturday at 9 p.m. The report declared that the Rules and the aims of the Alliance were in contradiction with those of the International and demanded the expulsion of its founder, Bakunin, of the two leaders of the Jura Federation, Guillaume and Schwitzguébel, as the chief agents of the Alliance, and moreover of B. Malon and two others besides. It was proved to the majority of the commission that the Alliance was a secret society founded for conspiracy not against the government, but against the International. At the Basle Congress the Bakuninists had still hoped they would be able to seize the leadership in the International. That was why they themselves at the time proposed the famous Basle resolutions by which the General Council’s powers were extended. Disappointed and again deprived of the fulfilment of their hopes by the London Conference, up to the time of which they had won considerable ground in Spain and Italy, they changed their tactics. The Jura Federation, which was entirely under the control of the Alliance, issued its Sonvillier circular in which the Basle resolutions once proposed by their own delegates were suddenly attacked as the source of all evil, as inspired by the evil spirit, the spirit of “authoritarianism”, and in which complete autonomy, a free alliance of independent factions was put forward as the only aim for the International. Naturally. When a secret society formed for the purpose of exercising leadership over a bigger open society cannot directly achieve supreme leadership, the best means for it to achieve its purpose is to disorganise the open society. When there is no central authority and no national central agencies or only such as are deprived of all powers, conspiring intriguers can best ensure themselves the leadership of the whole indirectly, by their concerted action. The members of the Alliance of the Jura, Spain and Italy acted with great unanimity according to this plan and the disorganisation was to be carried so far at the Hague Congress that not only the General Council, but all central agencies, all the Congress resolutions and even the General Rules, with the exception of the Preamble, were to be abolished. The Italians had already included this in their Rules, and the Jura delegates had received definite instructions to propose this to the Congress and to withdraw in the event of its not being adopted. But they were grossly mistaken. Original documents were laid before the commission proving the link between all these intrigues in Spain, Italy and Switzerland, making it clear that the secret link lay precisely in the “Alliance” itself, whose slogan was provided by Bakunin and to which Guillaume and Schwitzguébel belonged. In Spain, where the Alliance had long been an open secret, it had been dissolved, as the delegates from that country belonging to it assured, and on these repeated assurances they were not subjected to disciplinary measures.

The debate on this question was heated. The members of the “Alliance” did all they could to draw out the matter, for at midnight the lease of the hall expired and the Congress had to be closed. The behaviour of the members of the Alliance could not but dispel all doubt as to the existence and the ultimate aim of their conspiracy. Finally the majority succeeded in having the two main accused who were present—Guillaume and Schwitzguébel—take the floor; immediately after their defence the voting took place. Bakunin and Cuillaume were expelled from the International, Schwitzguébel escaped this fate, owing to his personal popularity, by a small majority; then it was decided to amnesty the others.

These expulsions constitute an open declaration of war by the International to the “Alliance” and the whole of Mr. Bakunin’s sect. Like every other shade of proletarian socialism Bakunin’s sect was admitted in the International on the general condition of maintaining peace and observing the Rules and the Congress resolutions. Instead of doing so, this sect led by dogmatic members of the bourgeoisie having more ambition than ability tried to impose its own narrow-minded programme on the whole of the International, violated the Rules and the Congress resolutions and finally declared them to be authoritarian trash which no true revolutionary need be bound by. The almost incomprehensible patience with which the General Council put up with the intrigues and calumny of the small band of mischief-makers was rewarded only with the reproach of dictatorial behaviour. Now at last the Congress has spoken out, and clearly enough at that. Just as clear will be the language of the documents concerning the Alliance and Mr. Bakunin’s doings in general which the Commission will publish in accordance with the Congress decision. Then people will see what villainies the International was to be misused for.

Immediately after the voting a statement of the minority was read out, signed jointly by the Jura, Belgian, Dutch and four Spanish delegates, and also by one French and one American delegate, declaring that after the rejection of all their proposals they were still willing to remain in touch with the General Council as regards statistics and correspondence and the payment of subscriptions, but would suffer no interference by the General Council in the internal life of the Federations. In the event of such interference by the General Council all the undersigned Federations would declare their solidarity with the Federation concerned, such interference being justifiable only in blatant violation of the Rules adopted by the Geneva Congress.

The signatories of this statement thus declare themselves to be bound only by the Geneva Rules of 1866, but not by the subsequent alterations and Congress decisions. But they are forgetting that the Geneva Rules themselves acknowledge the binding force of all Congress decisions and thus the whole of their reservation falls to pieces. For the rest, this document signifies absolutely nothing and was received by the Congress with the indifference it deserves. The signatories exceeded their powers inasmuch as they wish

1. to oblige their respective Federations to set up a separate alliance within the International and

2. to oblige these Federations to acknowledge only the Geneva Rules as being valid and to invalidate all other, subsequent Congress decisions.

The whole document, apparently forced on the duped minority only by the Alliance blusterers, is therefore worthless. And if a Section or a Federation were to try to contest the validity of the International’s Congress decisions collected in our Rules and Administrative Regulations, the new General Council will not hesitate to do its duty as the old one did in respect of American Section No. 12. That is still a long way off for the separate alliance.

We note further that in the course of the same afternoon (Saturday) the General Council’s accounts for the past financial year were audited, found correct and approved.

After yet another address from the Hague Section to the Congress had been read out the Congress was closed at half-past midnight with shouts of: “Long live the International Working Men’s Association!”