126
"7. Since the success of the working men's movement in each
country cannot be secured but by the power of union and
combination, while, on the other hand, the usefulness of the
International General Council must greatly depend on the
circumstance whether it has to deal with a few national centres
of working men's associations, or with a great number of small
and disconnected local societies; the members of the
International Association shall use their utmost efforts to
combine the disconnected working men's societies of their
respective countries into national bodies, represented by central
national organs."
The basic principles of this Constitution were later ratified by the Congress.
One of the essential changes introduced on Marx's initiative was the abolition of the
office of the President of the Central, or as it was later called, the General Council.
The experience of the General German Labour Union which had been organised by
Lassalle showed all the inconveniences bound up with this utterly useless institution.
For conducting its meetings the General Council now elected a chairman. The
current affairs were taken care of by a meeting of secretaries from the various
national organisations in co-operation with a general secretary.
The Constitution of the International has been utilised more than once in the
history of the international labour movement. The scope of this work does not allow
a more detailed study of the various changes that were introduced into it during its
eight years. In its main features it remained unchanged. Towards the end of the First
International, more power was delegated to the General Council.
The all-absorbing problem of the temporary Council was the calling together
of an International Congress. This was the cause of heated discussions. Marx
maintained that all the preliminary work be completed first so that the different
countries should first have the opportunity of acquainting themselves with the
problems confronting the International and of organisation a bit. The Englishmen,
on the contrary, putting the interests of their trade-union movement above
everything else, demanded the immediate convocation of a Congress. The French
emigrants in the Central Council were allied with them.
The whole affair terminated in a compromise. In 1865 there was convened not
a congress but a conference. It took mace in London and it was chiefly preoccupied
127
with the examination of reports and the arranging of the order of business for the
next congress. Switzerland, England, Belgium, and France were represented. Things
did not look very promising, It was decided to call a congress for May, 1866.
In Germany, despite the existence of the General Labour Union, affairs were
in an even worse state. Lassalle was killed in a duel on August 30, 1864. In
accordance with the constitution of the Union. Bernhard Becker, a man of small
capabilities and little influence, became president. A much greater influence was
wielded by J. B. Schweitzer (1833-1875), the editor of the central organ of the Union,
The Social-Democrat. Very soon, however, serious disagreements on questions of
internal politics arose between him and Wilhelm Liebknecht who had shortly before
become a member of the editorial staff. Marx and Engels who had agreed to
contribute to the paper, were soon driven publicly to disclaim all connections with it.
The late Mehring attempted to defend Schweitzer; he asserted that in this case Marx
and Engels had been wrong. But Mehring was in error. All the facts speak against
him.
We have already seen that there had been serious flaws in Lassalle's tactics,
that he had allowed himself inadmissible stratagems with respect to the ruling clique.
Schweitzer went even further. He printed a series of articles which, Mehring himself
admits, created a very unpleasant impression by their sycophantic cringing before
Bismarck. Mehring endeavoured to justify it, claiming that such methods were
needed in view of the prevailing legal conditions. Liebknecht, the veteran
revolutionist, could not, it was claimed, adapt himself and so he set his old friends
and teachers upon Schweitzer. Schweitzer and Liebknecht separated. The latter was
supported by Marx and Engels, and even by their old opponents, such as Hess, who,
too, could not reconcile themselves with Schweitzer's methods. The old revolutionists
nicknamed Schweitzer's party "Bismarck's Party."
When the London conference met, Marx's friends in Germany had neither a
publication nor real organisation. The Lassalleans refused to have anything to do
with the International. As a result of the schism, the Germans were represented in
the International only by the old German emigrants who were then domiciled in
England and Switzerland.
At the London conference it became clear that the finances of the
International were in a most deplorable state. It appeared that for a whole year only
about one hundred and fifty dollars were collected. The whole turnover amounted to
128
about thirty-three pounds sterling. With such an income it was difficult to carry on
activity on a large scale. It was hardly enough for meeting the most necessary
expenses.
During the discussions of the order of business, other disagreements came to
light, that arose between the Frenchmen who lived in London and the Frenchmen
who represented the Paris organisation. The latter were against taking up the
question of Polish independence for they regarded it as purely political. On their
part, the French emigrants, supported by some Englishmen, demanded that the
question of religion be placed on the order of the day; they clamoured for an
unflinching war upon religious prejudice. Marx declared himself against this. He
based his opposition on the sound belief that in view of the still weak ties that were
holding the labour movement of the different countries together, the injection of the
religious question would generate unnecessary friction. He, however, remained in
the minority.
Another year elapsed before the first Congress was called. During the interval
there occurred a number of important events. In England this was a year of intensive
political conflict. The English trade unions, led by the workers who were members of
the General Council, were carrying on a stubborn struggle for a wider suffrage. This
struggle, we repeat, was developing under the direction of the International. Marx
tried his utmost to prevent the English workers from repeating their old mistakes. He
wanted them to fight independently without entering into entangling alliances with
the radicals. But in the beginning of 1866 the old tendency manifested itself -- the
tendency that had caused such harm to the English labour movement during the era
of Chartism, and that is still having its deleterious effects on it. Since universal
suffrage was the object, the proletarian leaders, partly because of financial
considerations, entered into an agreement with the most radical section of the
bourgeois democracy which had universal suffrage on their programme. To conduct
this fight a joint committee was organised, made up of the most variegated elements.
Here, there were such highly respectable democrats as Professor Beesly; here, too,
were representatives of the so-called free professions -- lawyers, judges,
representatives of the petty, the middle, and particularly the commercial bourgeoisie
who, from the very beginning were inclining toward compromise. The struggle was
carried on in the English manner. Meetings and demonstrations were arranged. In
July, 1866, London witnessed a demonstration, the size of which it had not seen even
Dostları ilə paylaş: |