A history of socialism

by Thomas Kirkup

The proposal of the French delegates for the exclusion of the intellectual proletariat from the Association led to an interesting discussion. Was this proletariat to be reckoned among the workers? Ambitious talkers and agitators belonging to this class had done much mischief. On the other hand, their exclusion from socialistic activity would have deprived the labourers of the services of most of their greatest leaders, and the intellectual proletariat suffered from the pressure of capital quite as much as any other class of workers. The proposal for their exclusion was rejected.

The second congress, held at Lausanne in 1867, made considerable progress in the formulating of the socialistic theories. It was resolved that the means of transport and communication should become the property of the State, in order to break the mighty monopoly of the great companies, under which the subjection of labour does violence to human worth and personal freedom. The congress encouraged co-operative associations and efforts for the raising of wages, but emphatically called attention to the danger lest the spread of such associations should be found compatible with the existing system, thus resulting in the formation of a fourth class, and of an entirely miserable fifth. The social transformation can be radically and definitely accomplished only by working on the whole of society in thorough accordance with reciprocity and justice.

In the third congress, held at Brussels in September 1868, the socialistic principles which had all along been implicitly contained in the aims and utterances of the International received most explicit statement. Ninety-eight delegates, representing England, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland, assembled at this congress. It resolved that mines and forests and the land, as well as all the means of transport and communication, should become the common property of society or of the democratic State, and that they should by the State be handed over to associations of workers, who should utilise them under rational and equitable conditions determined by society. It was further resolved that the producers could gain possession of the machines only through co-operative societies and the organisation of the mutual credit system, the latter clause being a concession apparently to the followers of Proudhon. After proposing a scheme for the better organising of strikes, the congress returned to the question of education, particularly emphasising the fact that an indispensable condition towards a thorough system of scientific, professional, and productive instruction was the reduction of the hours of labour.

The fundamental principle, ‘to labour the full product of labour,’ was recognised in the following resolution: ‘Every society founded on democratic principles repudiates all appropriation by capital, whether in the form of rent, interest, profit, or in any other form or manner whatsoever. Labour must have its full right and entire reward.’

In view of the struggle imminent between France and Germany, the congress made an emphatic declaration, denouncing it as a civil war in favour of Russia, and calling upon the workers to resist all war as systematic murder. In case of war the congress recommended a universal strike. It reckoned on the solidarity of the workers of all lands for this strike of the peoples against war.

At the Congress of Basel in September 1869, little remained for the International to accomplish in further defining the socialistic position. The resolution for transforming land from private to collective property was repeated. A proposal to abolish the right of inheritance failed to obtain a majority, for while thirty-two delegates voted for the abolition, twenty-three were against it, and seventeen declined to vote.[^[5]]

If we now turn from the congresses of the International to consider the history of its influence in Europe, we shall see that its success was very considerable. A conference of delegates of English Trade Unions which met at Sheffield in 1866 most earnestly enjoined the unions to join the International; and it repeatedly gave real help to the English trade unionists by preventing the importation of cheap labour from the Continent. It gained a substantial success in the effectual support of the bronze-workers at Paris during their lock-out in 1867. At the beginning of 1868 one hundred and twenty-two working men’s societies of South Germany, assembled at Nuremberg, declared their adhesion to the International. In 1870 Cameron announced himself as the representative of 800,000 American workmen who had adopted its principles.

It soon spread as far east as Poland and Hungary; it had affiliated societies, with journals devoted to its cause, in every country of Western Europe. The leading organs of the European press became more than interested in its movements; the Times published four leaders on the Brussels Congress. It was supposed to be concerned in all the revolutionary movements and agitations of Europe, thus gaining a world-historic notoriety as the rallying-point of social overthrow and ruin. Its prestige, however, was always based more on the vast possibilities of the cause it represented than on its actual power. Its organisation was loose, its financial resources insignificant; the Continental unionists joined it more in the hope of borrowing than of contributing support.

In 1870 the International resolved to meet at the old hearth of the revolutionary movement by holding its annual congress in Paris. This plan was rendered abortive by the Franco-German war. The war, however, helped to bring the principles of the Association more prominently before the world. During the Austro-German struggle of 1866 the International had declared its emphatic condemnation of war; and now the affiliated societies of France and Germany, as well as the General Council at London, uttered a solemn protest against a renewal of the scourge. Some of its German adherents likewise incurred the wrath of the authorities by venturing to protest against the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine.

All will agree that it is a happy omen for the future that the democracy of labour as represented by the International was so prompt and courageous in its denunciation of the evils of war. It gives us ground to hope that as the influence of the democracy prevails in the council of nations the passion for war may decline. On this high theme no men have a better right to speak than the workers, for they have in all ages borne the heaviest of the burden of privation and suffering imposed on the world by the military spirit, and have had the least share in the miserable glories which victory may obtain.