Karl Marx; his life and work

265

referred to the International and described Marx as “ a German, a man of acute but destructive spirit, like Proudhon, of imperious temperament, and jealous of the influence of others. He believes strongly neither in philosophical nor religious truths, and, as I had reason to fear, hatred outweighs love in his heart, which is not right even if the hatred may in itself have foundation.” Marx was perhaps less bitter in his opposition to Mazzini, but what he lacked in anger he more than made up in contempt.

After the adoption of his Address the victory of Marx was made complete by the adoption of the Preamble and Rules which he had written. He was the real, though unofficial, leader of the International, just as he had been of the old Communist League. Others might hold the offices and shine upon all public occasions, for these things he cared nothing whatsoever. He was satisfied to let others have all the glory and applause so long as he could rule. That he enjoyed the sense of power which his leadership gave him is certain. He enjoyed it and was content with it.

When it is read in the light of a full knowledge of the problems which confronted the new organization, the Inaugural Address is unquestionably a remarkable production, a splendid testimony to the wisdom of Marx, and to his possession of those qualities requisite in a leader of a great working-class movement. As far back as 1848, in the Communist Manifesto, he had written that the real fruit of the workers’ battles “ lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers.” From the beginning of his revolutionary career that central idea of the necessity of an ever increasing union of the workers had dominated his thoughts and actions, urging him on. Because he recognized that actual union of the workers, j politically and economically, was far more important than j agreement to a dogma, he paid very little attention to theory! in the Address, and aimed only to unite the workers, regardless of theories. A more astute declaration of principles was


266

KARL MARX

probably never written. It shows the statesmanlike qualities of Marx’s mind.

The Address opened with a review of social conditions since 1848. Wealth had been enormously increased since that year of revolutionary effort; colonies had been opened up, new inventions and discoveries made, free trade introduced, but misery was not a whit lessened; the contrast in the conditions of the classes was more marked than ever, and property was in fewer hands. In England the number of landowners had decreased eleven per cent, in the preceding ten years, and if this rate should continue the country would soon be ripe for revolution. While the Old Order was thus hastening to its doom, the New Order had made some progress. Thus, the Ten Hours’ Act was “ not merely a great practical result, but was the victory of a principle. For the first time the political economy of the bourgeoisie had been in clear broad day put in subjection to the political economy of the working class.” Then, too, cooperation had been tried sufficiently to show that it was possible for the workers to carry on industries without the intervention of the employing class, and this had spread abroad the hope that, like slavery and feudal serfdom, wage-labour was a transitory and subordinate form, destined to be replaced by associated free labour.

The International had for its aim the promotion of this hope, and of this associated labour, not piecemeal and sporadically, but systematically, on a national scale, through the agency of the state. The working class must therefore acquire political power, the mastery of the state, and use it to obtain possession of the socially necessary means of production. To acquire this political power they must first of all unite; they possessed one element of strength, that of numbers, but success could be realized only through union, such as the International aimed to bring about. The workers must take an interest in international politics, watch the diplomacy of their governments closely, and uphold the simple rules of morality in the relations of pri-


THE “INTERNATIONAL” 267

vate persons and of nations. The Polish question, the struggle between the slaveholding South and the free men of the North in the United States, and the subjection of the Caucasus by Russia were referred to briefly and the Address concluded:

“ The struggle for such a policy forms part of the struggle for the emancipation of the working class; proletarians of all countries, unite! ”

From this brief summary it will be seen that the Inaugural 1 Address was a clear statement of practical policy based upon Socialist principles. There is no great essential difference between it and the Manifesto of 1848, except that it is more cogent. Marx had learned much since 1848, and was more of a practical politician. He had learned to concentrate attention upon the essential things — essential, that is, to the practical j movement. Nothing else was worthy of attention. It is one of the strangest facts in connection with Marxian Socialism that so many of its advocates have been such narrow dogmatists and doctrinaires in opposition to the example of Marx himself.

Even more definite and explicit as a statement of Socialist * principles is the Preamble to the Rules of the association, containing the declaration of the aims and purposes of the organization, to which all members must subscribe. The emancipation of the working classes can only be achieved by the working classes themselves; the struggle for this is not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but a struggle for equal rights and duties, and for the abolition of all class rule. The economic dependence of the worker upon the monopolists of the instruments of labour, the sources of life, forms the basis of every kind of servitude, of social misery, of spiritual degradation, and political dependence. The economic emancipation of the workers is therefore the great end to which every political movement must be subordinated. All previous efforts to attain this end have failed because of a “ want of solidarity between the various branches of labour in every land, and by reason of the absence of a brotherly bond of unity between the working classes

268

KARL MARX

of different countries.” The emancipation of labour is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, which embraces all the modern nations, and its solution “ depends upon the practical and theoretical cooperation of the most advanced countries.” While the awakening of the proletariat in the industrial countries of Europe gave rise to new hope, it brought also its warning against old errors and its demand for “ an immediate union of the movements not yet united.” In view of these circumstances, the members of the International Workingmen’s Association “ recognize truth, right and morality as the basis of their conduct toward one another and their fellow men, without respect to color, creed or nationality.”

It was the end of October by the time these declarations were adopted by the General Council. Not until the Geneva congress, in September, 1866, after they had been in use for two years, were they approved by a congress of the association and so made official. In the meantime, as provisional declarations, they had been widely circulated in several languages.

. One of the very earliest utterances of the General Council | of the International was an address to the American people con- I gratulating them upon the re-election of President Lincoln. The working-class admirers and friends of the great President, who had defended him in 1862-1863 against the attacks of Gladstone and the English middle-class Liberals in general, rejoiced at his success. Marx wrote the address of congratulation, which the General Council ordered to be sent to Mr. Lincoln through the American minister, Mr. Adams. The address is worth quoting here because it shows the high opinion of Lincoln which Marx held. The Civil War had drained the Germaji workingmen’s societies in America, largely composed of “ Forty-Eighters,” of their best men, completely destroying many of these societies; and among those who had enlisted in the Union cause were many of the personal friends of Marx, who was always proud of the part his expatriated countrymen took in the great struggle. For Lincoln his admiration was


THE “INTERNATIONAL” 269

almost unbounded. The address of the General Council was first published in the London daily newspapers of the twenty- third of December, 1864. It read as follows:

" To Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.

“ Sir: We congratulate the American people on your re

election by a large majority. If resistance to the slave power were the reserved watchword upon your first election, the triumphant war-cry of your re-election is ‘ death to slavery.’ From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class.

“ The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant, or prostituted by the tramp of the slaveholder? When an oligarchy of three hundred thousand slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the history of the world, slavery on the banner of armed revolt; when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great republic had first sprung up, whence the first declaration of the rights of man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counter-revolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding ‘ the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the Old Constitution ’ and maintained slavery to be a beneficent institution, indeed the only solution of the great problem of the relation of capital to labour, and cynically proclaimed property in man the corner stone of the new edifice; then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the frantic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labour, and that for the men of labour, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic.

“ Everywhere they bore, therefore, patiently, the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the pro-slavery intervention importunities of their ‘ betters.’ and from most parts of Europe contributed their quota of blood to the good cause. While the workingmen, the true political

270

KARL MARX

power of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted in the highest prerogative of the whiteskinned labourer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labour, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

“ The workingmen of Europe feel sure that as the American war of Independence initiated a new era of ascendency for the middle class, so the American anti-slavery war will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come, that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the singleminded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social work.

“ Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association,

“The Members of the General Council.” ¹

We know from an article written by Marx in 1878, in reply to an article by George Howell, which contained many erroneous statements, that President Lincoln “ in the most friendly fashion,” replied to the address. Unfortunately, however, the reply seems not to have been preserved. At all events, the present writer has been unable to discover anything in the nature of an acknowledgment of the address beyond the formal note from Mr. Adams acknowledging its receipt and promising to forward it to the President. Less than four months from the date of the address of congratulation, on April 14, 1865, the great “ single-minded son of the working class ” was foully assassinated by Wilkes Booth. When the news reached England Marx manifested genuine sorrow and indignation. He speedily convened a meeting of the General Council and presented an address of condolence which was adopted and ordered to be sent to Lincoln’s successor, President Johnson.

¹ Life of Abraham Lincoln. By A. J. Barrett; New York, 1865,

pages 694-695-


THE “INTERNATIONAL”

At one of the first meetings of the General Council it was ■ decided to hold the first congress of the association at Brussels, ! in September, 1865. Alarmed at the prospect, however, the 1 Belgian government prohibited the holding of the congress on ' Belgian soil. Marx was notified that if the congress were held the government would enforce an old and almost forgotten law under which foreigners could be summarily expelled. The arrangements were hastily changed, therefore, and instead of the regular congress at Brussels, a special conference was held in ^ - London. Marx was present at this conference, and among others of note who attended were John Philip Becker and the famous Belgian Socialist, Caesar de Paepe. The conference lasted three days—'September 27-29 inclusive — and was attended by representatives from Belgium, France, Germany, ] Great Britain and Ireland, Italy, Poland and Switzerland. ( There was a great deal of misunderstanding and wrangling, i and more than once did Marx play the role of peacemaker with success.

The questions debated at the conference included, international organization; combination of working-class organizations; trades unions, their history and future development; direct and indirect taxation; women’s and children’s labour; standing armies and their influence upon the interests of the working class; the Muscovite danger to Europe and the reestablishment of a free and united Poland. On the evening of the second day a grand soiree was held to celebrate the foundation of the International and the victory of the North in the American Civil War. Speeches were made by many of the delegates, all of them rejoicing at the triumph of the Northern cause and the abolition of slavery. Marx, speaking in German and French, eulogized the martyred President, declaring that “ he was a martyr to our cause — the cause of freedom.” He argued, as he had done in the address of congratulation upon Lincoln’s reelection, that the defeat of the Southern slave

272

KARL MARX

holders was important to the working class of every nation in Europe.

One of the most heated debates of the London conference was upon the subject of religion. It has been frequently charged against Marx that he introduced this cause of contention, being anxious to have the association adopt an anti-religious attitude. Mr. George Howell, who was a member of the General Council, wrote in 1878 that Marx sowed the seeds of discord and ruin by the introduction of the religious question,1 and many other writers have repeated the charge.

The statement is erroneous and misleading, however, as Marx pointed out in a criticism of the article by Howell, published in the Secular Chronicle.2

Even though it involves somewhat of a digression, it is perhaps worth while to consider somewhat in detail the attitude of Marx upon this question, both at the conference and afterward. The question was brought before the congress, not by Marx, but by one of the French delegates. The subject was not on the list of topics to be discussed, but the French delegate, who was an atheist of the most rabid type, persisted in discussing it and sought to place the conference on record as being irreconcilably opposed to all forms of religion. Marx pointed out that the conference could not fairly pledge the association in any such manner, it being in the nature of an informal gathering. To get rid of the question for the time, and to provide for its regular disposition by the next congress, he urged that in the agenda for the congress to be held at Geneva in the following year, the subject, “ Religious ideas and their influence on social, political and intellectual movements ” should be included. Against the opposition of Howell and other English delegates, the conference adopted this suggestion and the French delegates were charged with the task of introducing the

¹ In the Nineteenth Century (London), July, 1878.

² Secular Chronicle, August, 1878. The article can be found, in German translation, in the Neue Zeit, Vol. 20, 1901-1902.


THE “INTERNATIONAL”

subject at the Geneva congress. That is all the truth there is in the statement that Marx “ introduced ” the subject of religion and sowed the seeds of discord.1

Marx was not at the Geneva congress a year later when, after long discussion of the subject, the congress, on a motion by Odger, decided to proceed to “ next business.” Had he been present it is certain that he would have opposed that method of disposing of the subject. He would have endeavoured to get the congress to make a clear and unmistakable declaration of its position — a very different position from that desired by the rabid anti-religionists. Personally an atheist, j he took the position which is to-day the recognized position of I all the Socialist parties of the world, namely, that religious be- j lief or non-belief is a private matter with which they are not concerned.

That this was the position which Marx always took can very readily and easily be proved. When, in 1869, the conflict with Bakunin reached its highest point, Marx opposed the Alliance de la Democratic Socialiste almost as much for its atheistic plank as for its denial of political methods. The Alliance, formed by Bakunin, and controlled by him, had as one of its chief planks the following:

“The Alliance declares itself Atheist; it demands the abolition of all worship, the substitution of science for faith, and of human justice for divine justice; the abolition of marriage, so far as it is a political, religious, juridical, or civil institution.”

What Marx thought of this Bakuninist programme with its “ atheism dictated to its members as a dogma ” may be seen from the letter which he wrote to his friend Bolte, American

¹ Mr. Howell’s article teems with misstatements. For instance, the statement that the draft of the Address of Congratulation on Lincoln’s re-election contained the phrase “ God created all races with one blood, which was stricken out, is untrue. Marx certainly would not have written such a phrase, and we have his word that the address was adopted as he read it, without the slightest revision.

18

274

KARL MARX

member of the General Council of the International, on November 23, 1871.1 When the Alliance programme was published, the General Council of the International, upon the initiative of Marx himself, at once published a repudiation of it, censuring its authors.2 And when a number of Swiss atheists applied for admission to the International with the name “ Section of Socialist Atheists,” they were rejected upon the ground that the association did not recognise “ theological sections.” 3

That Marx was an atheist is undeniable, but he regarded the “ professional atheists ” with ill-concealed contempt, and nothing could well be farther from the truth than to represent him as a rabid anti-religionist. He was, in fact, most tolerant of the religious beliefs and opinions of others — perhaps because of the religious belief of his parents. He was fond of discussing the subject with his visitors and never failed to manifest sympathy with the great ethical principles underlying all religions —■ sympathy quite as strong as his own unbelief. Mr. Maltman Barrie, an English journalist with whom Marx and Engels were on very intimate terms, a member of the International, tells a story which illustrates the characteristic religious tolerance of Marx. Together with Barrie and a number of his German Socialist comrades, Marx attended the funeral of John Rogers, a prominent London radical and ex-Chartist, for whom he had entertained great affection. When the cortege reached Highgate Cemetery, Marx went with the sorrowing relatives into the little chapel, where a short religious service was held, manifesting throughout the greatest reverence.

His fellow Socialists, however, or most of them, refused to

¹A translation of part of the letter appears in the International Socialist Review, March, 1908. The complete letter is published in Briefe und Auszuge aus Briefen von Joh. Phil. Becker, Jos. Dietzgen, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx u.A. and F.A. Sorge und Andere, page

36- . .

² Vide letter to the Eastern Post, signed by John Hales, Secretary

of the General Council, but really written by Marx, June 12, 1871.

⁸ Secular Chronicle, August, 1878.


THE “INTERNATIONAL”

enter the chapel, remaining outside. When Marx came out and joined his friends at the chapel door, he was severely reproached by one of them, named Kaufman, for taking part in a religious service, an act which Kaufman regarded as a denial of principle. Marx replied, in effect: “To me these re

ligious services are nothing. I have come here to give pleasure to my friends, and show my respect for Mr. Rogers. If it gives pleasure to my friends I will take part in their religious services, for, as I have said, the services are to me nothing. You, Mr. Kaufman, also profess that these things are indifferent to you, but your conduct contradicts your professions; for, whereas you have walked miles in the procession, you stand out of it when the chapel service comes. To me, on the contrary, they are truly indifferent, and therefore I take part in them if that will give pleasure to my friends.” 1

A materialist in his philosophy, Marx possessed an intensely s spiritual nature and underneath his intellectual materialism | there was always the urge of a great spiritual passion. Many of his so-called “ orthodox ” followers have failed to comprehend this. In their devotion to the materialism of the philosopher they have been blind to his deeply spiritual nature. Many of these “ Marxists ” have never paused to consider the significance of the fact that Marx made it an important count in his indictment of capitalism that it involved the “ spiritual degradation ” of the workers.2 It is impossible to understand Marx without taking into account the spiritual struggles of his youth and his lifelong devotion to Dante. So great was his love for the great Divine Comedy that he could repeat canto after canto, almost the whole of it, in fact.

The cosmic spirit of Whitman appealed to him with great force. When he first heard of the “ good gray poet,” through W. Harrison Riley, he immediately became interested. He loved to repeat the lines:

¹ Letter in Justice (London), October 24, 1896.

² In the Preamble to the Rules of the International, for example.


27 6

KARL MARX

“ All the past we leave behind;

We debouch upon a newer, mightier world, varied world;

Fresh and strong the world we seize, world of labour and the march,

Pioneers! O, Pioneers! ”

He committed to memory many lines from Leaves of Grass, and was fond of quoting such lines as —

“ Speaking of miracles, a hair on the back of my hand is as great a miracle as any.”

Taken in conjunction with the splendid idealism of his life, these things prove that Marx was a man of fine spiritual temperament, very different from the “ crass and sordid ” materialist he is often represented to have been.

As already noted, Marx did not attend the first congress of the International, which was held at Geneva the first week in September, 1866. He wrote to Kugelmann on the twenty-third of August, “ I have been working, too, on account of the congress of the International at Geneva, but I am not going there, as it would be too great a hindrance to my work. I believe that I am doing far more good to the working class >by my writings than I could by going to the congress.” The value of this work was not appreciated by all the delegates at Geneva, however. Efforts were made to exclude him from the association which he had done more than any other man to create.

The cry of “ Down with the Intellectuals ” which was raised | by demagogues against Marx and Engels in 1847 was agai° i raised against them at Geneva in 1866. MM. Friburg and j Tolain and several other French delegates, disciples of Proud! hon, fought bitterly for the passage of a rule which would confine membership in the association to manual workers who 1 were wage-earners, their motive being the exclusion of Marx and Engels. They were opposed by Odger, Eccarius, Becker and others, and eventually the motion was defeated by a large . majority. The fanatical anti-intellectualism which in 1847




Facsimile of Karl Marx’s Manlscuipt (From IV. H. Riley)

THE “INTERNATIONAL” 277

would have prevented Marx and Engels from writing the Communist Manifesto was still pursuing them.

Marx had, as he later wrote to Kugelmann, “ great fears ” about the Geneva congress, but they were not justified by anything that came to pass. The congress was a complete victory for Marx. Though he was not present, he dominated the congress through trusted representatives. Practically every important resolution adopted came from his pen, as did the brilliant manifesto of the General Council. Concerning this (manifesto, Marx wrote to Kugelmann: “I purposely re

stricted it to such points as permit of an immediate agreement and cooperation of the workers, and give immediate nourishment and impulse to the requirements of the class struggle and the organization of the workers as a class. The Parisian gentlemen had their heads full of Proudhonistic phrases. They prate of science and know nothing. They contemn all revolutionary action, that is, such as springs from the class struggle itself, all concentrated social movement, which can therefore be forced through by political means as, for example, legal shortening of the working day.”1

Only in the light of this frank and unequivocal statement which so clearly reveals his thought and purpose is it possible to understand Marx’s policy in connection with the Geneva congress. The resolutions, with the exception of one relating to the class war, all dealt with very practical questions of immediate importance. They advocated raising the age limit for child labourers; regulation of women’s labour by the state; the ten-hour day; 2 direct taxation in place of indirect taxation, such direct taxes to be levied mainly against the rich. Voluntary cooperative societies were approved, but it was pointed out that they could not materially aid in the solution of the social problem unless they were extended to production as well as to distribution. It was recommended that all cooperative societies devote part of their profits to propaganda purposes, and

¹ Die Ncue Zeit, 1902, II, 62-63.

’ As against an amendment in favour of the eight-hour day.


278

KARL MARX

that special care should be taken not to fall into the methods of capitalist employers. This programme makes it perfectly clear that Marx was far from adopting the doctrinaire attitude common to many of his disciples. His aim was to create a powerful movement of the workers, not a cult or sect bound to fixed dogmas. It is rather remarkable that, during recent years, as the Socialist parties in various countries have devoted increasing attention to the promulgation of practical reforms, and less to theory, they have been charged with the “ abandonment of Marxism.” The truth is that they have thus become more truly Marxian, not less so.

The adoption of the Inaugural Address and the Preamble and Rules which he had written two years before, and the passage of all the important resolutions which he had drafted for the congress, gave Marx great pleasure and satisfaction. It is questionable, however, if the pleasure and satisfaction which these things afforded equalled that which he experienced when, during the Geneva congress, word came from America that the first convention of the National Labor Union, at Baltimore, had been successfully held, and that resolutions similar to those adopted at Geneva were passed.1 With his irrepressible optimism Marx believed that this signified the rapid spread of the International over all the United States.

The Geneva congress instructed the General Council to prepare and publish an official report of the proceedings. The report was to be written by Marx. Since it was not considered safe to entrust the minutes and the mass of papers and memo-

¹ Morris Hillquit, in his admirable History of Socialism in the United States, argues, on page 185, that the similarity of resolutions was due wholly to the “ similarity of the conditions of the working men on both sides of the Atlantic.,” That any such similarity of conditions existed is, to say the least, very doubtful. A, letter from Marx to Kugelman, dated October 9, 1866, indicates that Marx had sent copies of the Geneva resolutions to America—probably to Weydemeyer and Edward Schlegel — the latter a German Socialist of great ability who took a prominent part in the Baltimore convention.


THE “INTERNATIONAL”

randa necessary to the mails for transmission, one Jules Got- traux, a native of Switzerland, who was a naturalized British subject, was commissioned to deliver them personally to Marx. At the French frontier Gottraux was arrested by the French police and liberated only after his papers had been confiscated. The General Council first applied direct to the French Minister of the Interior for the return of the papers, and, when that request failed, to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Stanley, asking him to secure their return. The British Ambassador in Paris was at once instructed to demand the return of the papers and in a few days they were returned through the Foreign Office. But the French government soon found other ways of attacking the International.

The first practical test of the association took place soon • after the Geneva congress. A series of important strikes tookj place in France and England, and Marx seized upon the op-i portunities thus afforded to prove the practical value of an inter-! national solidarity which had been generally regarded as having) only sentimental value. When the bronze-workers of Paris* went on strike Marx saw to it that steps were taken to collect funds for their support from their English comrades, the Eng-' lish workers responding to the appeal for aid most generously. Within a few months the London tailors were engaged in a vital struggle, and Marx saw his opportunity to appeal to the workers of the Continent to support in their turn the English workers and so demonstrate once more the practical worth of international solidarity. The victory of the workers in each case was no doubt aided by this activity of the International.

To deal in detail with all the strikes of importance in which the International played an important role in assisting the workers during the next five years would exceed the limits of our present study. Suffice it to say that Marx seized upon every j possible opportunity to make the organization of practical j worth to the workers in all their struggles. The result was that a legend grew up which connected the International with


28o

KARL MARX

every strike upon the Continent, whether big or little. As soon as workers went out on strike anywhere the Intema- tional was blamed. It was said in the newspapers, and widely believed, that the International was a secret conspiratory society, at the head of which was the terrible Marx, who had written a very wonderful book in mystic language only to be j learned by the initiated. With millions of dollars at their i disposal, the emissaries of this society plotted revolution and compelled innocent workers to go out on strike, sealing their lips with fear. As a matter of fact, the International was not in any manner connected with the majority of these strikes.

The second congress was held at Lausanne, Switzerland, dur- ! ing the first week of September, 1867. Among the most notable of the delegates on this occasion were Ludwig Buchner, the celebrated philosopher, author of Force and Matter; Caesar de Paepe; Dr. Kugelmann; John Philip Becker; C. Longuet, who married Marx’s eldest daughter, Jenny; Eugene Dupont; Karl Biirkli; James Guillaume, the friend and confidant of Bakunin; George Odger; and Alfred A. Walton, an old Welsh \ Chartist. The congress was chiefly remarkable for the struggle j that took place between the Marxists and the Proudhonists. I Marx himself was not present, but he was ably represented by 1 Kugelmann, Eccarius, Lessner, and other trusted friends.

As Lessner long afterwards expressed it, “ the Marxists were chiefly concerned to save the congress from making the movement ridiculous.” The Proudhonists were very anxious to secure endorsements for various schemes — “ social quack nostrums,” as Marx contemptuously dubbed them. Guillaume had a system of phonography for which he sought the approval of the congress, and seemed to be astonished when Longuet and Lessner opposed him and said that phonography was a subject for grammarians and graphologists, not for a labour congress. But Guillaume was supported by a number of his Colleagues, fellow disciples of Proudhon, who submitted resolu


THE “INTERNATIONAL” 281

tions in favor of simplified spelling, quite a la Roosevelt, and Proudhon’s scheme for a universal language.

They also submitted resolutions in favour of currency reform which have a familiar ring for American ears. They contended that the “ gold monopoly ” enabled the capitalists to oppress the workers, and so advocated “ free credit ” and a paper currency. The workers were to use the paper money exclusively and so, eventually, it would be the universal medium of circulation and utterly destroy the gold monopoly. The Marxists managed to defeat all these resolutions, but such was the fear of the state on the part of many delegates that the congress, much to the chagrin and disgust of the English delegates, passed a resolution declaring that the state should not undertake the education of children, except in individual cases, where the father was incapacitated.

An incident of the congress was a sort of informal debate upon the merits of the teachings of Lassalle and Marx respectively. The debate took place in the grand hall of the Casino. An eloquent and scholarly lecture upon Lassalle and his theories was delivered by Dr. Buchner, who was replied to by Eccarius in a masterly exposition and defence of the Marxian theories. This speech took two full hours, during which time Eccarius held the unusually critical audience spellbound. In repose, Eccarius looked heavy and lethargic, but upon the platform, when fully aroused, his eyes flashed fire and burning, impassioned words fell from his lips, slowly, but with magnetic effect. An inveterate snuff-taker, he availed himself of every pause occasioned by the applause of his audience to take a pinch, and by the time he had finished, his long beard was plentifully sprinkled with snuff! Lessner, who was one of the very few men present whose oratorical abilities could be compared to those of Eccarius, told the present writer, thirty years afterward, that he had never heard Socialism so eloquently expounded, nor the German language so beautifully spoken.


282

KARL MARX

Marx, who knew the intentions of the Proudhonists, was anxious concerning the outcome of the congress at Lausanne, but he was even more anxious concerning another congress which met at Geneva a few days later, and which was attended by an old antagonist of his, the man who was so soon to challenge his supremacy in the International. The congress was the congress of the League of Peace and Liberty, and the man was the Russian revolutionary lion, Michael Bakunin.

Owing to the fact that his cousin, Count Mouravieff Amur- ski, was Governor-General of Siberia while he was a prisoner there, Bakunin had enjoyed exceptional privileges. He was permitted to travel freely all over Siberia and found no difficulty in escaping by way of Japan in 1861. Travelling by way of Yokohama, San Francisco and New York, he reached London at the end of December, 1861, and joined his friend Herzen. He was in London when the International was founded, and soon afterward called upon Marx for an explanation of its scope and plan. Marx explained the aim of the organization and its methods, and Bakunin at once pledged himself to join it and work for its success. Before he left London Bakunin received from Marx one of the very earliest copies of the Inaugural Address and the provisional rules, concerning which he wrote Marx a most enthusiastic letter. He did not, however, fulfil his pledge to join the International and work for its success. For nearly three years little was heard from him.

He turned up at the Geneva congress of the League of Peace and Liberty in September, 1867, and made a brilliant speech which gave him great prestige and fairly entitled him to share the honours of the congress with Giuseppe Garibaldi, who was the lion of the hour, acclaimed by shouting crowds and worshipped by richly gowned ladies who literally burned incense at his feet! Many of the delegates of the International journeyed from the congress at Lausanne to the peace congress at Geneva to greet Garibaldi, who took advantage of the occasion to assure them of his agreement with their position. To Eu-


THE “ INTERNATIONAL ” 283

gene Dupont he said in reply to a challenging question, “ I agree with you. . . . Death to the triple tyrannies — po

litical, religious and industrial! Your principles are my own!”1

After the congress of the league, Bakunin became a member ' of its General Committee and at once attempted to dictate its policy. He found, however, too many effective opponents to enable him to rule the movement, and the old charge that he was a paid spy of the Russian Government was revived by some of the opponents, causing much bitterness of feeling. By the time the next congress of the league took place, in September, 1868, Bakunin had become so embittered by his failure to control its policy that he decided to resign publicly. At the congress he made a bitter speech, vehemently attacking the members of the League of Peace and Liberty, and was expelled without the option of resignation. Apart from its invective, it must be said that Bakunin’s speech was rather a tame affair. He proposed a programme advocating the “ equality of classes ” and the abolition of the right of inheritance as the beginning of a social revolution. Defeated, he withdrew from the league with a small group of his followers and at once cast greedy eyes upon the International.

The 1868 congress of the International had taken place at , Brussels a few days before the congress of the League of Peace j and Liberty. Ninety-six delegates attended, representing Bel- j gium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Switzerland and Spain. Great progress was reported, and the European press j devoted much attention to the proceedings. The London Times editorially declared that “ one must admit that since the time of the establishment of Christianity and the destruction of the ancient world, one has seen nothing like this awakening of labour.” Historically considered, the Brussels congress is 1 chiefly notable for the renewal of the Marx-Proudhon struggle. (

¹ Garibaldi and the Socialists. By J. H. Harley. The Socialist Review (London), July, 1908.


284

KARL MARX

Marx Had foreseen this and with his usual caution tried to guard against the success of the Proudhonists by carefully instructing Eccarius, Lessner, and others among his followers. But in spite of the heroic efforts of such valiant fighters as these, and Marx’s old colleague, Moses Hess, and owing to the preponderance of Belgians and Frenchmen present, the ! Proudhonists had rather the advantage and the Marxists were compelled to make many important concessions to them in order to avoid a split.

j A letter from Bakunin, referring to the peace congress at Berne, and seeking the support of the International for his programme, brought him for the first time into open and official touch with the supreme authority of the International Workingmen’s Association. The congress had before it the terrible possibility of a war between Germany and France, so that the i attitude of the association to war was a matter of the most vital importance. Three delegates were elected to attend the peace conference at Berne, and a resolution was unanimously adopted declaring that “ war is only a means to bring the people under the yoke of the privileged class . . . that it strengthens

despotism and strangles liberty . . . that war has for its

chief cause the want of an economical balance, and, therefore, can be removed only by social reform . . . the congress

raises, therefore, ... a protest against war, it requests all the sections of the association, as well as all labour societies and associations, of whatever kind they may be, to work in their respective countries ... to prevent war between peoples, which really is only a civil war, a fight between brothers and comrades.” As a practical method of preventing war, the con' gress advocated a general strike of the workers. “ Reckoning on the spirit of solidarity among the workmen of all countries,

I the congress hopes that their help will not be wanting in this strike of the people.”

The congress also adopted a motion, proposed by the German delegates, congratulating Marx upon the publication of the first




Pierre Joseph Proudhon


Michael Bakunin