The International in America (1872)

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

Engels wrote this article for Der Volksstaat; he drew on Marx’s extracts from the newspapers and letters of the members of the International concerning the split in the North American Federation (see this volume, pp. 636-43). One of his sources was an article in the Madrid newspaper La Emancipacion, No. 54, June 22, 1872: “La burguesia y la Internacional en los Estados-Unidos” (The bourgeoisie and the International in the United States) which exposed the attempts of bourgeois reformers to use that American organisation in their own interests.

Engels’ article was published in English for the first time in Marx and Engels, On the United States, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1979.

Our readers will already be aware from our American correspondence that a split has occurred amongst the members of the International in the United States. What has happened in New York in the last few months is, in fact, so unique in the history of the International that it is worth presenting it in context. For that purpose, we shall base what we have to say on an article from the Emancipation, published in Madrid (June 22), and will supplement it with the original documents at our disposal.

It is a well-established fact that, in Europe, the bourgeoisie and the governments made the International into a fearful bogey that has subsequently properly fulfilled its task and so alarmed all good citizens that no one need fear that the International will ever be diverted from its original aims by a mass influx of bourgeois elements. Things take a different course in America. That which sends European bourgeois and governments into convulsions appears, by contrast, interesting there. A society that has grown up on a purely bourgeois foundation, without a landowning nobility or a monarchy, laughs at the childish mortal terror of the European bourgeoisie which—even in France, intellectually at least—has still not outgrown the scourge of the monarchy and the nobility. The more fearful, therefore, the International appeared in Europe and the more monstrously it was presented by the correspondents of the American press—and no one is more adept at painting a lurid picture than diese gentlemen—the more widespread the view became in America that the time was now right for making both financial and political capital out of it.

The extent to which American society is ahead of European is strikingly exemplified by the fact that it was two American ladies who first discovered this and attempted to set up a business on the basis of it. Whilst the men of the European bourgeoisie trembled in fear of the International, two female members of the American bourgeoisie, Mrs. Victoria Woodhull and her sister Miss Tenni Claflin (who publish Woodhull & Claftin’s Weekly) conceived the plan of exploiting this society of horrors—and they almost got away with it.

Both these sisters, millionairesses, advocates of women’s emancipation and especially “free love”, resolutely joined the International. Section No. 9 was set up under the leadership of Miss Claflin, Section No. 12 under that of Mrs. Woodhull; new sections soon followed in the most diverse parts of America, all set up by adherents of the two sisters. According to the currently valid arrangements, every section had the right to send a delegate to the Central Committee, which met in New York. The consequence was that, very soon, this federal council, which had originally been made up of German, Irish and French workers, was swamped by a whole host of bourgeois American adventurers of all sorts and of both sexes. The workers were pushed into the background; victory for the two speculating sisters seemed assured. Then Section No. 12 took centre stage and explained to the founders of the American International what it was really all about.

On August 30, 1871, Section 12 issued its own manifesto over the signature of W. West, secretary. It reads:

“The object of the International is simply to emancipate the labourer, male and female, by the conquest of political power. It involves, first, the Political Equality and Social Freedom of men and women alike. Political Equality means the personal participation of each in the preparation, administration and execution of the laws by which all are governed. Social Freedom means absolute immunity from impertinent intrusion in all affairs of exclusively personal concernment, such as religious belief, the sexual relation, habits of dress, etc. The proposition involves, secondly, the establishment of an Universal Government” for the whole world. “Of course, the abolition of [...] even differences of language are embraced in the programme.”

So there might be no misunderstanding as to the aim involved, a form of organisation is called for, according to which

“if practicable, for the convenience of political action, there should be a section formed in every ... election district. There must ... be instituted in every town a municipal Committee or Council, corresponding with the Common Councils; in every State a State Committee or Council, corresponding with the State legislature, and in the Nation a National Committee or Council, corresponding with the United States National Congress... The work of the International, includes nothing less than the institution, within existing forms, of another form of Government, which shall supersede them all.”

It is not, then, for the overthrow, but for the exploitation of the principles of the existing state, that, according to this, the International has come into existence. Mr. West was, in fact, right in proclaiming (Woodhull & CI. Weekly, March 2, 1872):

“The issue of the ‘Appeal’ of Section 12 was a new departure in the history of the International!”

In order to accomplish this “new departure” it was, above all, necessary to shake off the fetters of the previous General Rules and Congress decisions, the validity of which had remained uncontested. Accordingly, Section No. 12 proclaimed (W. & C. Weekly, October 21, 1871)

“the independent right of each section” freely to interpret the congress decisions and the Rules and Regulations of the General Council (it should read the General Rules and Administrative Regulations of the Association) “each section being alone responsible for its own action”.

The nonsense now went too far. Instead of sections of workers, sections consisting of all kinds of bourgeois swindlers, free-lovers, spirit-rappers, spirit-rapping shakers, etc., were set up, and so Section No. 1, the first section of the International to be formed in America (Germans), finally issued an appeal in which, in contrast to this swindle, emphasis was laid on the essentially proletarian character of the Association. The American parent section, No. 12, replied immediately. In W. & C. W. of November 18, 1871, it declares, through its secretary West:

“The extension of equal citizenship to women, the world over, must precede any general change in the [...] relations of capital and labour... Section 12 would also remonstrate against the vain assumption, running all through the Protest” (of Section 1) “under review, that the International Working Men’s Association is an organisation of the working classes.”

On November 25, there followed another protest from Section 12, which says:

“The statement” (contained in the General Rules) that the working classes can only be emancipated by their own efforts, “cannot be denied, yet it is true so far as it describes the fact that the working classes cannot be emancipated against their will.”

War finally broke out between the exploiters of the state, place-seekers, free-lovers, spirit-rappers and other bourgeois swindlers, on the one hand, and, on the other, the workers who, in their naïveté, actually imagined that the International Working Men’s Association was an organisation not of the bourgeois, but of the working class in America too. The German Section No. 1 demanded that the Central Committee exclude Section 12 and the delegates of all sections that did not consist, at least two-thirds, of wage labourers. This demand caused a split in the Central Committee; some of the Germans and the Irish together with some Frenchmen supported Section 1, whilst the Americans, together with the majority of the French and two German (Schweitzer) sections formed a new central committee.

On December 4, the old committee (which we shall call No. I) issued a circular describing the circumstances as follows:

“In the Central Committee, which is supposed to be a defence against all reformist swindles, the majority finally consisted of reformists and benefactors of the nation who had already almost sunk into oblivion, and thus it came about that the people who preached the gospel of free love sat most fraternally beside those who want to bless the whole world with a common language; supporters of land co-operatives, spiritualists, atheists, and deists, each trying to ride his own particular hobby-horse. Particularly Section 12 (Woodhull)... The first step that has to be taken here, in order to advance the movement, is to organise and, at the same time, to stimulate the revolutionary element, which lies in the conflict of interests of worker and capitalist... The delegates of sections 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 16, 21, 23, 24, 25 and other sections, having seen that all efforts to direct this nonsense were in vain, therefore decided, after the old Central Committee had been indefinitely adjourned (December 3, 1871) to found a new one, which consists of actual workers.”

In the meantime, central committee No. II (Woodhull) continued to meet and filled its places with a host of delegates from allegedly new sections that had been established mainly by virtue of the efforts of sections 9 and 12, but were, in the main, so weak that they scarcely had enough members to fill the barest minimum of officers’ positions (secretary, treasurer, etc.).

Both committees appealed to the General Council in London. In the meantime, various sections (e.g., French No. 10 and all the Irish sections) withdrew from both committees pending the decision of the General Council.

On March 5 and 12, the General Council passed the resolutions that have already been published in the Volksstaat (No. 37). They suspended Section 12, advised that both committees combine until an American Congress was held to decide the matter, and recommended for the future that all sections not consisting, at least two-thirds, of wage labourers should not be admitted. Although, for good reasons, these resolutions almost exclusively took the form of recommendations, they determined the future of the International in America. By supporting as they did committee No. I, they made it impossible for the bourgeois of committee No. II to continue exploiting the name of the International for their own particular purposes.

Since the beginning of the split and in direct contravention of Resolution No. 17 of the London Conference, which laid down that all internal affairs of the Association should be dealt with only within the sections and federations and not in public, committee No. II had been inviting reporters from the New York press to all its proceedings, and had seen to it that the whole matter was discussed in the most disreputable bourgeois papers. The same thing happened at this point, when this committee set about the General Council, which it had imagined it had duped. The activities of committee No. II made it possible for the worst of the New York newspapers, such as the Herald, etc., to declare the whole thing a squabble between Germans and Frenchmen, between communism and socialism, etc., and the opponents of the workers in New York were jubilant at the alleged destruction of the International in America.

However, in all that, committee No. II was constantly at pains to inform the world that the International was not a workers’ organisation, but a bourgeois one. As early as December 16, 1871, its organ Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly declared:

“Where our committee is concerned, there is no need to prove that two-thirds or any part of a section shall be wages-slaves, as if it were a crime to be free”;

and on May 4, 1872, it declared again:

“In this decree of the General Council its authors presume to recommend that in future no American section be admitted, of which two-thirds at least are not wages-slaves. Must they be politically slaves also? As well one thing or the other. [...]

The intrusion of ‘bogus reformers, benefactors of the nation, middle-class quacks and trading politicians’ is mostly to be feared from that class of citizens who have nothing better to depend upon than the proceeds of wages-slavery.”

This was committee No. II’s last word on one count. Not only was it absurd to believe that the International Working Men’s Association was an association of workers—in addition to that, it could only fulfil its purpose really properly if it excluded all workers and wages-slaves, or at least declared them suspect.

What, precisely, is the purpose of the International Working Men’s Association (without working men) in America? This, too, is now explained to us. The elections for a new President of the United States were approaching.

On March 2, 1872, those two ladies’ paper W. & C. W., forever with us, carried an article entitled “The Coming Combination Convention” in which it may be read that:

“There is a proposition under consideration by the representatives of the various reformatory elements of the country looking to a grand consolidated convention to be held in this city in May... Indeed, if this convention acts wisely, who can say that the fragments of the defunct Democratic” (i.e., sympathetic towards slavery) “Party may not make themselves known and take part in it... Everybody of Radicals should be represented at it”, etc.

Week after week the same paper carries appeals to all kinds of world reformers:

“Labour, Land, Peace and Temperance reformers, and Internationals and Women Suffragists, [...] as well as all others, who believe that the time has come” to carry out the principles of true morality and religion (sic!),

signed first of all by Victoria Woodhull, then by Th. H. Banks, R. W. Hume, G. R. Allen, W. West, G. W. Maddox, T. Millot, in short by the main people of committee No. II. All these appeals expressly state that the delegate convention would nominate candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States.

On May 9, 10, and 11, at the Apollo Hall in New York, this monstrous delegate convention finally got underway. All the male and female cranks of America assembled there. Committee No. II was present in a body. It was decided that Mrs. Victoria Woodhull should be nominated as candidate for the presidency of the United States, and, in fact, in the name of the International!

The whole of America responded with resounding laughter. Of

course, those Americans who had a vested interest and were indulging in speculation, did not allow this to divert them. It was a different story with the Germans and Frenchmen who had allowed themselves to be talked into it. Section 2 (French) withdrew its delegate from committee No. II and declared its support for the resolutions of the General Council. Section 6 (German) likewise withdrew its delegate, Dr. Grosse, former private secretary to the Berliner Schweitzer, from committee No. II, and refused to have anything to do with committee No. II until it declared its support for the resolutions of the General Council. On May 20, a further eight sections—French and German—withdrew from committee No. II, which now represents only the well-known, ambiguous American elements, which, in fact, had belonged together even before they had joined the International—Madame Victoria Woodhull, together with assorted accomplices. They now declare that they intend to establish a separate, exclusively American International, which, of course, they are free to do.

In the meantime, in response to an inquiry from the German section in St. Louis and the French section in New Orleans, the General Council has declared that it only recognises committee No. I (now the provisional Federal Council of the United States). Thus, Madame Victoria Woodhull’s campaign to conquer the International has achieved its ultimate goal.

The Emancipacion adds:

“Having heard these facts, all impartial observers must wonder: when and how might this scandal have ended, if there had been no General Council with authority to uphold the basic principles of the International and to suspend sections and federations who sought to change the character of the Association for their own political or personal ends.”