Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Chapter 8 (2025)

We have covered in detail the history of the foundationof the International and the writing of its Inaugural Address. We shallnow proceed to study the Constitution of the International. It, too, waswritten by Marx and was composed of two parts; one a statement of principles,the other dealing with organisation problems.

We have seen how skillfully Marx introduced the basic principlesof communism into the Inaugural Address of the International. But stillmore important and incomparably more difficult was the introduction ofthese principles into the Constitution. The Inaugural Address pursued onlyone aim -- the elucidation of the motives which impelled the workers toassemble on September 28, 1864, and to found the International. But thiswas not yet a programme, it was only an introduction to it; it was merelya solemn pronunciamento before the whole world -- and this was particularlybrought out in its very name that a new international association, an associationof workers, was being founded.

In not a less masterly fashion did Marx succeed in solving thesecond problem -- the formulation of the general problems confronting theworking class in different countries.

"Considering,

"That the emancipation of the working classes must be conqueredby the working classes themselves; that the struggle for the emancipationof the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies,but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule;

"That the economical subjection of the man of labour to the monopoliserof the means of labour, that is, the sources of life, lies at the bottomof servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation,and political dependence;

"That the economical emancipation of the working classes is thereforethe great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinateas a means;

"That all efforts aiming at that great end have hitherto failedfrom the want of solidarity between the manifold divisions of labour ineach country, and from the absence of a fraternal bond of union betweenthe working classes of different countries;

"That the emancipation of labour is neither a local nor a national,but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists,and depending for its solution on the concurrence, practical and theoretical,of the most advanced countries;

"That the present revival of the working classes in the most industriouscountries of Europe, while it raises a new hope, gives solemn warning againsta relapse into the old errors, and calls for the immediate combinationof the still disconnected movements."

A careful perusal of these points reveals how closely the Communist Partyof Russia had, in some planks of its programme, followed the theses formulatedby Marx. The same is true of the old programmes of the English, French,and German parties. In the French and the Erfurt programmes particularly,there are many points that are actually a literal transcription of thebasic premises of the Constitution of the First International.

Of course, not all the members of the provisional committee ofthe International understood these propositions in the same way. For instance,the English, French, and German members all agreed on the proposition thatthe emancipation of the working class could be achieved only by the workingclass itself; but this was interpreted differently by each group. The Englishtrade unionists and the ex-Chartists saw in this proposition a protestagainst the irksome solicitude bestowed upon the workers by the benignmembers of the middle class. The Frenchmen, who were strongly incensedagainst the intelligentsia, understood this proposition in the sense ofa warning against the treacherous intelligentsia and an affirmation ofthe ability of the working class to get on without it. Only the Germans,the former members of the Communist League, really grasped all the implicationsof this proposition. If the working class could emancipate itself onlythrough its own efforts, then any coalition with the bourgeoisie, any hobnobbingwith the capitalists would be in sharp opposition to this principle. Itwas also emphasised that the aim was not to emancipate this or that groupof workers, but the working class as a whole, and that the emancipationcould be accomplished not by one or another group of workers but by theentire working class, and that this would presuppose a class organisationof the proletariat. From the proposition that capitalist monopoly of themeans of production is the cause of the economic enslavement of the workingclass, it followed that it would be necessary to destroy this monopoly.And this deduction was further strengthened by the demand for the abolitionof any class rule, which, of course, could not be attained without theabolition of the division of society into classes.

The proposition, stated in the Inaugural Address, was not repeatedin the Constitution. In it there was no direct assertion that for the realisationof all the aims the proletariat had put before itself, it was necessaryfor it to obtain political power. Instead of this, we find another statement.The Constitution maintained "That the economic emancipation of the workingclasses is therefore the great end which every political movement oughtto be subordinate as a means."

Since this proposition subsequently became the starting pointof most furious disagreements in the First International, we must explainit.

What did this proposition imply? The great goal of the proletarianmovement was the economic liberation of the working class. This goal couldbe reached only by expropriating the monopolists of the means of production,by the abolition of all class rule. But how could this be accomplished?Were the "pure" socialists and anarchists right in their deprecation ofpolitical struggle?

No, was the reply contained in the thesis formulated by Marx.The struggle of the working class on the political field is as necessaryas it is on the economic field. Political organisation is necessary. Thepolitical movement of the proletariat must needs develop. It must not howeverbe regarded, as it is regarded by the bourgeois democrats and the radicalintelligentsia, as something independent. These are only interested inthe change of political forms, in the establishment of a republic; theywant to hear nothing of the fundamental questions. This was why Marx emphasisedthat for the proletariat, the political movement was only a means for theattainment of their great ends, that it was a subsidiary movement. Thisstatement was, to be sure, not as clear cut as the one given in the CommunistManifesto or even in the Inaugural Address, where it was expresslystated that the cardinal aim of the working class was to gain politicalpower.

True, to the English members of the International the propositionas it, was formulated by Marx was quite clear. The Constitution was writtenin the English language, and Marx utilised the terms with which the formerChartists and Owenites, who were members of the committee, were thoroughlyfamiliar. Apropos of this we should recall that the Chartists' quarrelwith the Owenites had been chiefly on the ground that the latter took cognizanceonly of the "great end" and insisted on ignoring the political struggle.When the Chartists advanced the Charter with its famous six points, theOwenites accused them of having forgotten socialism completely. Then theChartists on their part asserted that for them, too, the political strugglewas not the chief aim. Thus twenty years before, the Chartists had formulatedthe proposition which was now repeated by Marx. For them, the Chartistsmaintained, the political struggle is a means to an end, not an end initself. We can see then why Marx's thesis did not arouse any oppositionin the committee. Only a few years later, when the heated discussions betweenthe Bakuninists and their opponents arose, did this point become the boneof contention. The Bakuninists maintained that originally the words "asa means/index.htm" were not contained in the Constitution and that Marx purposelysmuggled them in later to foist his conception of politics on the International.An omission of the words "as a means/index.htm" does no doubt change the whole meaningof this point. In the French translation of the Constitution these wordswere actually omitted.

A little misunderstanding arose which could have been easily explainedbut which in the heat of factional conflict led to the absurd accusationagainst Marx of falsification, of forging the Constitution of the International.When the Constitution had been translated the French official edition didnot contain the words "as a means." The French text reads: "The economicemancipation of the working class is the great end, to which the politicalmovement ought to be subordinate." This was deemed necessary in order notto attract the attention of Bonaparte's police which regarded with greatsuspicion any political movement among the workers. At the beginning thepolice did actually consider the French Internationalists as interestedmore in economics than in politics. Precisely on the same grounds did theBlanquists who were "politicians," also attack the poor internationalistsas "economists."

The trouble was still more aggravated by the fact that this incorrectFrench translation of the Constitution was reprinted in the French partof Switzerland and from there it was spread through all the countries wherethe French language was most familiar -- Italy, Spain, and Belgium. Weshall see later, that at the first general congress, which ratified thetemporary Constitution of the International, each nation accepted the textwhich it had before it. The First International was too poor to print itsConstitution in three languages. Even the English text was printed onlyin a thousand copies, all of which were soon gone. Guillaume, one of themost bitter opponents of Marx, and the one who most persistently accusedMarx of forgery, assures us in his History of the Internationalthat only in 1905 did he see for the first time the English text with thewords "as a means/index.htm" included! Had he wanted to, he could have convincedhimself long before that Marx was not a falsifier, but this would not materiallyhave changed the course of events. We know full well that on the questionof tactics the most violent discords may arise when to all appearancesthe conflicting parties adhere in principle to the same programme.

The Constitution contained another point against which, it istrue, the anarchists did not protest but which from the point of view ofMarxism inspires doubts. We have already mentioned that, in order to reachan agreement among the highly diversified elements which entered into themake-up of the committee, Marx was forced to compromise on some points.These were made not in the Inaugural Address, but in the Constitution.We shall soon see what these compromises were.

Right after the presentation of the principles, on the basis ofwhich the members of the committee that was elected at the meeting of September28, 1864, had decided to found the International Workingmen's Association,Marx continued:

"The first International Working Men's Congress declares that thisInternational Association and all societies and individuals adhering toit will acknowledge truth, justice, and morality, as the basis of theirconduct towards each other, and towards all men, without regard to colour,creed or nationality;

"This Congress considers it the duty of a man to claim the rightsof a man and a citizen, not only for himself but for every man who doeshis duty, no rights without duties, no duties without rights."

Wherein lay the concessions made by Marx? We observe that concerning thishe himself wrote to Engels, "All my suggestions were adopted by the subcommittee.I was compelled to insert into the Constitution some phrases about 'rights'and 'duties,' as well as 'truth, morality, and justice' but all this isso placed that it is not likely to bring any harm."

And it really was not anything catastrophic. There s nothing terrible,per se, in the words Truth, Justice, and Morality, as long as werealise that these concepts are not eternal, unalterable, and independentof social conditions. Marxism does not deny truth, justice, and morality;it merely proves that the evolution of these concepts is determined byhistorical developments, and that different social classes see in themdifferent contents.

It would have been bad had Marx been compelled to reiterate thedeclaration of the French and English socialists, had he been forced tosay that we must fight for socialism in the name of truth, justice andmorality and not because, as he had so marvellously presented in the InauguralAddress, it is inevitable, because it logically follows from the very conditioncreated by capitalism and from the very situation of the working class.As these words were put in by Marx they merely stated that the membersof the International Workingmen's Association were obliged to conduct themselvesin their relations to each other in the spirit of truth, justice, and morality,that is, not to betray each other or the class to which they belonged,not to deceive each other, to act in a comradely spirit, etc. Instead ofthe principles upon which the Utopian Socialists had based their demandfor socialism, these concepts were now transmuted by Marx into basic rulesof conduct within the proletarian organisation itself.

But the point which we are now discussing declares that theseprinciples must serve as a basis for the conduct of the members of theInternational in their relation to all persons regardless of race, religion,or nationality. And this was not less useful. We must bear in mind thatat this time in the United States there raged the Civil War; that shortlybefore the Polish insurrection had been definitely crushed; that the Czar'sarmies were bringing to a successful conclusion the conquest of the Caucasus;that religious persecution was still going on throughout most of the civilisedcountries; that even in England the Jews were given political rights onlytoward the end of the fifties, and that not only in Russia but in otherEuropean states, too, they were not yet enjoying full civil rights.

The bourgeoisie had not yet materialised the "eternal"principles of morality and justice even where members of their own classin their own countries were involved. These principles were most unceremoniouslytrampled upon where members of other countries or nationalities were concerned.

The point pertaining to Rights and Duties was much more objectionable.There was neither rime nor reason for urging each member to fight for hisrights as a man and as a citizen; to fight not only for himself but forothers. Here Marx, despite his great diplomatic skill, was forced to makea serious concession to the representatives of the French revolutionaryemigrants who were on the committee.

Let us recall now some facts concerning the Great French Revolution.One of the first acts was the declaration of the rights of man and of therights of citizenship. In its struggle against the landed aristocracy andabsolutism which was appropriating all the privileges and was imposingon others all the duties, the revolutionary bourgeoisie brought forwarddemands for equality, fraternity, and liberty, and demands that every man,every citizen, should be recognised as possessing a number of inalienablerights. Among these the sacred irrefragable right of private property wasparticularly stressed. This right was being unhesitatingly violated bythe aristocracy and by the royal power where the property of the ThirdEstate was concerned.

The Jacobins introduced only a few corrections into this declarationof rights. The point concerning the sacredness of private property wasleft intact. The declaration was rendered more radical with respect topolitics, for it sanctioned the right of the people to revolt and it emphasisedthe brotherhood of all nations. In this form it is known as the Declarationof Rights of 1793 or of Robespierre, and it became the programme of theFrench revolutionists from the beginning of 1830.

On the other hand Mazzini's adherents insisted on the acceptanceof his programme.. In his famous book, On the Duties of Man, whichwas translated into English and which won wide popularity there among theworkers, Mazzini, in accord with his slogan, "God and the People," andin contradistinction to the French materialists with their declarationof the rights of man based on reason and nature, advanced the conceptionof duty, of obligations, instilled by God in man as the fundamental premiseof his idealistic ethics.

We now understand the derivation of Marx's formula: There areno rights without duties, there are no duties with out rights. Forced toincorporate the demands from the Declaration of Rights, Marx utilized thecontroversy between the Frenchmen and the Italians to underline in hisformulation the distinction between this demand and the former demand ofthe bourgeoisie. The proletariat also demands its rights but it declaresat the outset that it does not admit the rights of the individual withoutthe individual's corresponding duties to society.

When a few years later, the Constitution was re-examined, Marxsuggested that only the words referring to the Declaration of Rights bestricken out. The proposition dealing with Rights and Duties was retained,and was later incorporated into the Erfurt Programme in the form of EqualRights and Equal Duties.

We shall now pass on to the study of the Constitution itself

"1. This Association is established to afford a central medium of communicationand co-operation between Working Men's Societies existing in differentcountries and aiming at the same end; viz., the protection, advancement,and complete emancipation of the working classes.

"2. The name of the Society shall be The International WorkingMen's Association.

"3. There shall annually meet a General Working Men's Congress,consisting of delegates of the branches of the Association. The Congresswill have to proclaim the common aspirations of the working class, takethe measures required for the successful working of the International Association,and appoint the General Council of the Society.

"4. Each Congress appoints the time and place of meeting for thenext Congress. The delegates assemble at the appointed time and place withoutany special invitation. The General Council may, in case of need, changethe place, but has no power to postpone the time of meeting. The Congressappoints the seat and elects the members of the General Council annually.The General Council thus elected shall have power to add to the numberof its members.

"On its annual meetings, the General Congress shall receive apublic account of the annual transactions of the General Council. The lattermay, in cases of emergency, convoke the General Congress before the regularyearly term.

"5. The General Council shall consist of working men from thedifferent countries represented in the International Association. It shallfrom its own members elect the officers necessary for the transaction ofbusiness, such as a treasurer, a general secretary, corresponding secretariesfor the different countries, etc.

"6. The General Council shall form an international agency betweenthe different national and local groups of the Association, so that theworking men in one country be constantly informed of the movements of theirclass in every other country; that an inquiry into the social state ofthe different countries of Europe be made simultaneously, and under a commondirection; that the questions of general interest mooted in one societybe ventilated by all; and that when immediate practical steps should beneeded -- as, for instance, in case of international quarrels -- the actionof the associated societies be simultaneous and uniform. Whenever it seemsopportune, the General Council shall take the initiative of proposals tobe laid before the different national or local societies. To facilitatethe communications, the General Council shall publish periodical reports.

"7. Since the success of the working men's movement in each countrycannot be secured but by the power of union and combination, while, onthe other hand, the usefulness of the International General Council mustgreatly depend on the circumstance whether it has to deal with a few nationalcentres of working men's associations, or with a great number of smalland disconnected local societies; the members of the International Associationshall use their utmost efforts to combine the disconnected working men'ssocieties of their respective countries into national bodies, representedby 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 abolitionof the office of the President of the Central, or as it was later called,the General Council. The experience of the General German Labour Unionwhich had been organised by Lassalle showed all the inconveniences boundup with this utterly useless institution. For conducting its meetings theGeneral Council now elected a chairman. The current affairs were takencare of by a meeting of secretaries from the various national organisationsin co-operation with a general secretary.

The Constitution of the International has been utilised more thanonce in the history of the international labour movement. The scope ofthis work does not allow a more detailed study of the various changes thatwere introduced into it during its eight years. In its main features itremained unchanged. Towards the end of the First International, more powerwas delegated to the General Council.

The all-absorbing problem of the temporary Council was the callingtogether of an International Congress. This was the cause of heated discussions.Marx maintained that all the preliminary work be completed first so thatthe different countries should first have the opportunity of acquaintingthemselves with the problems confronting the International and of organisationa bit. The Englishmen, on the contrary, putting the interests of theirtrade-union movement above everything else, demanded the immediate convocationof a Congress. The French emigrants in the Central Council were alliedwith them.

The whole affair terminated in a compromise. In 1865 there wasconvened not a congress but a conference. It took mace in London and itwas chiefly preoccupied with the examination of reports and the arrangingof the order of business for the next congress. Switzerland, England, Belgium,and France were represented. Things did not look very promising, It wasdecided 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 August30, 1864. In accordance with the constitution of the Union. Bernhard Becker,a man of small capabilities and little influence, became president. A muchgreater influence was wielded by J. B. Schweitzer (1833-1875), the editorof the central organ of the Union, The Social-Democrat. Very soon,however, serious disagreements on questions of internal politics arosebetween him and Wilhelm Liebknecht who had shortly before become a memberof the editorial staff. Marx and Engels who had agreed to contribute tothe paper, were soon driven publicly to disclaim all connections with it.The late Mehring attempted to defend Schweitzer; he asserted that in thiscase Marx and Engels had been wrong. But Mehring was in error. All thefacts speak against him.

We have already seen that there had been serious flaws in Lassalle'stactics, that he had allowed himself inadmissible stratagems with respectto the ruling clique. Schweitzer went even further. He printed a seriesof articles which, Mehring himself admits, created a very unpleasant impressionby their sycophantic cringing before Bismarck. Mehring endeavoured to justifyit, claiming that such methods were needed in view of the prevailing legalconditions. 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 andEngels, and even by their old opponents, such as Hess, who, too, couldnot reconcile themselves with Schweitzer's methods. The old revolutionistsnicknamed Schweitzer's party "Bismarck's Party."

When the London conference met, Marx's friends in Germany hadneither a publication nor real organisation. The Lassalleans refused tohave anything to do with the International. As a result of the schism,the Germans were represented in the International only by the old Germanemigrants who were then domiciled in England and Switzerland.

At the London conference it became clear that the finances ofthe International were in a most deplorable state. It appeared that fora whole year only about one hundred and fifty dollars were collected. Thewhole turnover amounted to about thirty-three pounds sterling. With suchan income it was difficult to carry on activity on a large scale. It washardly enough for meeting the most necessary expenses.

During the discussions of the order of business, other disagreementscame to light, that arose between the Frenchmen who lived in London andthe Frenchmen who represented the Paris organisation. The latter were againsttaking up the question of Polish independence for they regarded it as purelypolitical. 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 declaredhimself against this. He based his opposition on the sound belief thatin view of the still weak ties that were holding the labour movement ofthe different countries together, the injection of the religious questionwould generate unnecessary friction. He, however, remained in the minority.

Another year elapsed before the first Congress was called. Duringthe interval there occurred a number of important events. In England thiswas a year of intensive political conflict. The English trade unions, ledby the workers who were members of the General Council, were carrying ona stubborn struggle for a wider suffrage. This struggle, we repeat, wasdeveloping under the direction of the International. Marx tried his utmostto prevent the English workers from repeating their old mistakes. He wantedthem to fight independently without entering into entangling allianceswith the radicals. But in the beginning of 1866 the old tendency manifesteditself -- the tendency that had caused such harm to the English labourmovement during the era of Chartism, and that is still having its deleteriouseffects on it. Since universal suffrage was the object, the proletarianleaders, partly because of financial considerations, entered into an agreementwith the most radical section of the bourgeois democracy which had universalsuffrage on their programme. To conduct this fight a joint committee wasorganised, made up of the most variegated elements. Here, there were suchhighly respectable democrats as Professor Beesly; here, too, were representativesof the so-called free professions -- lawyers, judges, representatives ofthe petty, the middle, and particularly the commercial bourgeoisie who,from the very beginning were inclining toward compromise. The strugglewas carried on in the English manner. Meetings and demonstrations werearranged. In July, 1866, London witnessed a demonstration, the size ofwhich it had not seen even in the time of Chartism. The government wasfinally convinced that concessions were unavoidable.

We shall now recall that after the July Revolution of 1830 a strongmovement for parliamentary reforms had taken place in England. It had allculminated in a compromise, the workers were cheated in the most unpardonablefashion, and the right to vote was won only by the industrial bourgeoisie.So it happened now. When the government saw that its retreat was inevitable,and that the city workers were in a threatening mood, it proposed a compromise-- the broadening of the suffrage right to include the city proletariat.

We should specify that universal suffrage meant universal malesuffrage. The granting of this right to the women was not even thoughtof. The compromise was immediately accepted by the bourgeois members ofthe committee of electoral reforms. Suffrage was granted to workers whohad a definite abode, even if it consisted of one room, for which theypaid a specific minimum rental. Thus the right to vote was won by almostall the urban workers, with the exception of the very indigent ones ofwhom there were at the time a considerable number in the English cities.The rural proletariat still remained without the right to vote. This clevertrick was invented b y Disraeli, the leader of the English conservatives,and was subscribed to by the bourgeois reformers who persuaded the workersto accept the concessions with the view to a further struggle for an extensionof the suffrage. But the rural workers had to wait another twenty years,while the workers without permanent homes were given suffrage only afterthe liberalising influence of the Revolution of 1905 in Russia.

Events not less important took place in Germany in the years 1865-1866.A furious conflict broke out between Prussia and Austria. The mooted questionwas hegemony within Germany. Bismarck's objective was the final exclusionof Austria from the German Confederation, and the elevation of Prussiato a dominant place among the remaining German states. This controversydeveloped into an armed conflict between Austria and Prussia. In two orthree weeks Prussia, which had no scruples about entering into an alliancewith Italy against another German state, smashed Austria to pieces andannexed several petty German states which had been helping Austria -- theKingdom of Hanover, the free city of Frankfort, the Hesse principality,etc. Austria was definitely thrown out of the German Confederation. TheNorth-German Confederation headed by Prussia was organized. To win thesympathies of the workers, Bismarck introduced universal suffrage.

In France, Napoleon was forced to make some concessions. A fewlaws dealing with combinations of workers were eliminated from the criminalcode. The persecution of economic organisations, particularly co-operativesand societies for mutual aid, was weakened. The moderate wing among theworkers, with its emphasis on legal means, was gaining strength. On theother hand Blanquist organisations were growing. These fought the Internationaliststooth and nail, accusing them of abandoning revolutionary action and ofcoquetting with Bonaparte's government.

In Switzerland, the workers were engaged in their local affairsand only the emigrants from other countries took an interest in the International.The German section, headed by Becker, which published the Vorbote,played the role of a centre for that portion of the workers in Germanywho, unlike the Lassalleans, adhered to the International.

The Congress convened in Geneva in September, 1866, shortly afterPrussia had defeated Austria, and the English workers had won what hadthen appeared to them as a great political victory over the bourgeoisie.The Congress was opened with a scandal. Besides the Proudhonists, therecame from France the Blanquists, who also insisted on participating inthe work of the Congress. These were mostly students of very revolutionarytendencies. They acted most pertinaciously, although they had no mandate.They were finally quite indecorously thrown out; it was even rumoured thatthere was an attempt to drown them in the Lake Geneva, but this is a fairytale. But the denouement did not come off without the application of fisticand pedal energy, this being the usual thing when Frenchmen are embroiledin a factional fight.

When, however, the work was started, a battle royal occurred betweenthe Proudhonists and the delegation of the General Council which consistedof Eccarius and some English workers. Marx himself could not come, he wasbusy putting the finishing touches to the first volume of Capital.Furthermore, for a sick man who was also under the vigilant surveillanceof French and German spies such a journey would have been difficult. ButMarx wrote a very detailed report for the delegation concerning all thepoints to be taken up at the Congress.

The French delegation presented a very painstaking report whichwas an exposition of the economic ideas of Proudhon. They declared themselvesto be vigorously opposed to woman labour, claiming that nature itself designatedwoman for a place near the family hearth, and that woman's place is inthe home and not the factory. Declaring themselves definitely opposed tostrikes and to trade unions, they propounded the ideas of co-operationand particularly the organisation of exchange on the principles of mutualism.The first conditions were agreements entered into by separate co-operatives,and the establishment of free credit. They even insisted that the Congressratify an organisation for international credit, but all they succeededin doing was to have a resolution adopted which advised all the sectionsof the International to take up the study of the question of credit andthe consolidation of all the workers' loan associations. They even objectedto legislative interference with the length of the workday.

They met with the opposition of the English and the German delegates.Point by point they brought forward in the form of resolutions the correspondingparts of Marx's report.

This report insisted that the chief function of the Internationalwas the unification and co-ordination of the divers efforts of the workingclass fighting for its interests. It was necessary to weave such ties sothat the labourers of the different countries should not merely feel themselvescomrades in battle but that they should also work as members of one armyof liberation. It was necessary to organise international aid in casesof strikes and to interfere with the free movement of strikebreakers fromone country into another.

As one of the most important problems, Marx stressed scientificresearch into the conditions of the working class which should be institutedon the initiative of the working class itself. All the collected materialsshould be directed to the General Council to be worked over. Marx evenindicated briefly the chief points of this working-class inquiry.

The question of trade unions provoked most vehement debates. TheFrenchmen objected to strikes and to any organised resistance to the employers.The workers must seek their salvation through co-operatives only. The Londondelegates pressed as a counter-proposal that section of Marx's report whichdealt with trade unions. This was adopted by the Congress; but the samemisunderstanding occurred here as had with regard to the other regulationsof the First International. The exact text was not known for a long time.The Germans knew it through a very unsatisfactory translation publishedin Becker's Vorbote; the French knew it through an even worse translation.

All that had been said by Marx in the Poverty of Philosophyand in the Communist Manifesto concerning trade unions as the basicnuclei of the class organisation of the proletariat was restated by himin the resolution in a still more definite form. There were also pointedout the contemporary problems of the trade unions and the defects thatwere typical of them when they where transformed into narrow guild organisationsLet us examine this a little more closely.

How did trade unions originate? How have they developed? Theyare the result of the struggle between capital and wage labour. In thisstruggle, the workers find themselves in very unfavourable circumstances.Capital is a social force concentrated and focused in the hands of thecapitalists. The worker has only his labour power at his disposal. Thusall talk of a free agreement between the capitalist and the labourer ismere cant and nonsense. When the followers of Proudhon prated of a freeand a just agreement, they simply betrayed their ignorance of the mechanismof the capitalist process of production. An agreement between capital andlabour can never be concluded on a just basis, even according to the moralstandards of a society which places the material means necessary for lifeand labour on one side and the living productive energy on the other. Behindthe individual capitalist there is a social force. The only thing the workershave with which to counteract this force is numbers. But this power ofnumbers, the mass, is destroyed by a division among the workers, whichis created and maintained by the competition for jobs. Thus the first problemthat confronted the working class was the elimination of competition. Thustrade unions arose from the voluntary attempts of the workers themselvesto set aside, or at least to modify, this competition and to achieve conditionsfor an agreement which would enable them to rise above the status of mereslaves. Their immediate problem was limited to ordinary needs, to the discoveryof ways to stall the ceaseless usurpation of capital, to questions of wagesand the number of working hours. Contrary to the assertions of the Proudhonists,this activity is not only thoroughly just, it is also indispensable. Itis unavoidable while the present system of production continues to exist.It has to go further, and become more general And this can only be accomplishedthrough education and international combinations of workers.

But they play another and not less important rare, which the followersof Proudhon understood as little in 1866 as their teacher had understoodit in 1847. Unconsciously, the trade unions served and still serve as pointsaround which workers' organisations were and are crystallised. Their functionis reminiscent of the function of the municipalities and the communes inthe development of the bourgeoisie. And if they are indispensable for theguerrilla war between capital and labour, they are even more importantas organized factors in the abolition of the very system of wage labour.

Unfortunately, the trade unions have not yet clearly grasped thefull significance of this aspect of their role in social evolution. Tooexclusively absorbed in their local and immediate struggles with capital,the trade unions have not yet fully realised the force of their activityagainst the system of wage slavery. This is why they kept and still keepaloof from general and political movements.

Marx pointed out certain signs which indicated that the tradeunions were apparently beginning to wake up to some understanding of theirhistoric mission. These signs he saw in the participation of the Englishtrade unions in the struggle for universal suffrage as well as in the resolutionsadopted at their conference in Sheffield recommending that all the tradeunions join the International.

In conclusion, Marx, who until now was directing his artilleryat the followers of Proudhon, addressed himself to the pure-and-simpletrade unionists, criticising them for their tendency to limit themselvesto questions of wages and hours. Besides their primary problems, Marx insisted,the unions must learn to act as conscious organising centres of the workingclass in the interests of its complete emancipation. They must assist anysocial or political movement which aspires to this goal. They must regardthemselves as fighters and representatives of the entire working classand must act accordingly; they should attract into their ranks all theworkers. They must be indefatigably solicitous about the interests of theworkers in the most poorly paid branches of industry, as, for instance,the farm labourers who, owing to the peculiarity of the conditions underwhich they work, are condemned to impotence. The trade unions must convincethe entire world, that not only are they not narrow and selfish, but that,on the contrary, their objective is the setting free of oppressed millions.

Altogether, the debates at the Geneva Congress concerning tradeunions were of great interest. The London delegates defended their positionvery ably. To them the resolution was a mere deduction from Marx's exhaustivereport which, unfortunately, was known only to them. Even when the questionsthat were to be brought before the Congress had been discussed by the GeneralCouncil, there sprang up serious disagreements. Marx, therefore, proceededto deliver before the Council the detailed report in which he had clarifiedthe significance of trade unions in the capitalist process of production.He took advantage of this opportunity to present to his audience, in avery popular form, his new theory of value and surplus value, to explainto them the interrelation of wages, profits, and prices. The minutes ofthese meetings of the General Council impress one with their profound seriousnessof which many a learned bourgeois institution might be envious. The weightof all this scholarship and science was being offered in the service ofthe working class.

Not less skillfully did the London delegates defend Marx's resolutionconcerning the eight-hour day. In contradistinction to the French delegates,they maintained together with Marx that a condition precedent to any furtherefforts to improve and liberate the working class and without which allefforts would be futile was a legislative limitation of the length of theworking day. It was essential to restore the health and the physical energyof the working class -- the vast majority of each nation -- and also toinsure them the possibility of intellectual development, social communion,and political activity. The Congress, on the recommendation of the GeneralCouncil, declared the eight-hour day as the legislative maximum. This limitingof the workday to eight hours was one of the demands of the workers inthe United States. The Geneva Congress incorporated this demand into theplatform of the working class of the whole world. Night work was allowedonly in exceptional cases, in branches of industry and certain professionsdefinitely specified by the law. The ideal was the elimination of all nightwork.

It is regrettable that Marx did not expatiate upon the questionof woman labour in his report. He deemed it sufficient to say that theentire paragraph dealing with a shorter workday applied to all mature workers,women as well as men, with the additional provision that women were notto be admitted to any night work, or to any other work which would be ruinousfor the female organism, or which would subject it to the action of poisonousor generally harmful substances. And since the majority of the French andSwiss delegates had declared themselves against any female labour, theCongress found it easy to accept Marx's thesis and to pass the resolutionproposed by the Frenchmen. Thus the result was that it would be best toprohibit woman labour, but since it was still in use, it was necessaryto keep it within the limits suggested by Marx.

Marx's propositions pertaining to child and adolescent labourwere adopted in toto without any Proudhonist additions or modifications.Here it was suggested that the tendency of modern industry to attract childrenand adolescents of both sexes into a participation in the great tasks ofsocial production was progressive, wholesome, and legitimate, despite thefact that under capitalism it degenerated into a horrible evil. In a rationallyorganised society, Marx thought, every child from the age of nine upwardmust engage in productive labour, just as no physically able adult canbe released from a submission to the law of nature which demands physicaland mental work from those who want to live. In connection with this questionMarx proposed an elaborate programme to combine physical and mental labour.Spiritual and physical development plus a technical education which wouldgive the children a grasp of the scientific principles involved in modernproduction -- all this entered into his plan.

In his report Marx also touched upon the problem of cooperatives.He here took occasion not merely to destroy the illusions concerning pureco-operatives, but to point out the conditions antecedent to a successfulco-operative movement. As in the Inaugural Address, here too he preferredproducers' to consumers' co-operatives.

"Restricted, however, to the dwarfish forms into which individual wageslaves can elaborate it by their private efforts, the co-operative systemwill never transform capitalistic society. To convert social productioninto one large and harmonious system of free and co-operative labour, generalsocial changes are wanted, changes of the general conditions ofsociety, never to be realised save by the transfer of the organisedforces of society, viz: the state power from capitalists and landlordsto the producers themselves."

We see that here too Marx was emphasising the necessity for the workingclass to win political power for itself. The project of the Constitution,with which we have already become acquainted, was accepted without anymodifications. The efforts of the French delegates, who had already raisedthis question at the London conference, to interpret the word "work" tomean only physical work and thus to exclude the representatives of intellectuallabour, met with a strong opposition. The English delegates declared thatshould such a proposition be adopted, Marx, who had done so much for theInternational, would be among the first ones to be shut out.

The Geneva Congress effected a colossal propaganda weapon. Allthe resolutions passed by this Congress which formulated the basic demandsof the proletariat and which were almost exclusively written by Marx, enteredinto the practical minimum programmes of all working-class parties. TheCongress met with warm response from all countries, including Russia. Itwas immediately after the Geneva Congress, which had given such a powerfulstimulus to the development of the international labour movement, thatthe International won great popularity for itself. Some bourgeois-democraticorganisations directed their attention to the International, intendingto utilise it for their own purposes.

At the next Congress, in Lausanne (1867), a struggle broke outas to whether the new international society, the League for Peace and Freedom,should be permitted to participate in the next Congress. Those who werefor participation won. Only at the following Congress, at Brussels (1868),did the point of view of the General Council triumph. It was decided tosuggest to the League that it join the International, and that its membersenter as a section of the International.

Marx was not present at these two Congresses either. Before theLausanne Congress completed its work, the first volume of Capitalwas published. The Brussels Congress, at the suggestion of the German delegation,passed a resolution which urged the workers of the different countriesto study Capital. The resolution pointed out that to Marx belongedthe honour of being "the first economist who subjected capital to a scientificanalysis and who reduced it to its basic elements."

The Brussels Congress also took up the question dealing with theinfluence of machinery on the conditions of the working class, strikes,and private ownership of land. Resolutions were adopted in a spirit ofcompromise. Nevertheless it was here that the point of view of socialism,or collectivism as it was then called, won over the French delegates. Thenecessity for a transition to collective ownership of the means of transportationand communication as well as of land was now clearly recognised. In itsfinal form this resolution was adopted by the Congress at Basle (1869).

Since the Lausanne Congress the central political question inthe International was war and its prevention. After the war of 1866, afterPrussia's victory over Austria, the opinion was current that the inevitableconsequence would be an armed conflict between France and Prussia. In 1867the relations between these two countries reached a crucial stage. Napoleon'sposition became very insecure as a result of the unsuccessful colonialadventures into which he plunged in the hope of raising his prestige. Atthe instigation of several powerful financiers he contrived an expeditioninto Mexico. This provoked great irritation in the United States, whichguarded most jealously against any infringement of the Monroe Doctrine.Napoleon's project came to a disgraceful end. Things had to be patchedup in Europe. But there, too, failure haunted him. Having been compelledto make concessions in internal politics, he was hoping that a successfulannexation in Europe which would round out the dominions of France woulddoubtless strengthen his position. Thus in 1867 there arose the LuxembourgAffair. After various unsuccessful attempts to lay hands on some territoryon the left bank of the Rhine, Napoleon tried to buy from Holland the GrandDuchy of Luxembourg. Up to 1866 it had belonged to the German Union, butit was ruled by the King of Holland. A Prussian garrison which had formerlybeen stationed there was forced to leave. News of the bargain between Napoleonand Holland created great commotion among the German patriots. There wererumours of war. Napoleon, calculating that he was not yet fully ready forit, turned back. His prestige suffered a crucial blow. He again had torecede before the rising wave of opposition.

Toward the time of the Brussels Congress the situation in Europebecame so acute that war seemed imminent. The feeling prevailed that itwould break out as soon as France and Prussia completed their preparationsand found a convenient pretext. The perplexing problem of how to preventthe war, which, it was well understood, would seriously injure the interestsof the French and the German workers, was uppermost in the minds of theproletariat. The proletarian movement was growing rapidly, particularlyon the continent. Therefore the International, which by 1868 had developedinto a redoubtable force at the head of the international workers' movement,could not help becoming greatly involved in the question. After a seriesof heated debates in which some insisted that in case of war, it wouldbe necessary to call a general strike, while others maintained that onlysocialism could bring an end to all war, the Brussels Congress adopteda rather absurd resolution which was the result of a compromise.

But since, toward the summer of 1869, the phantom of war had temporarilydisappeared, economic and social problems rose to the top at the BasleCongress. The question concerning the co-operate ownership of all of themeans of production which had already been superficially discussed by theBrussels Congress, was now for the first time put squarely before the delegates.Those who were opposed to private ownership of land won a sweeping victory.The followers of Proudhon were irrevocably swamped. New dissensions, however,arose at the Congress. It was at Basle that the famous Bakunin first madehis appearance as the representative of a separate movement.

Where did he come from? We have already met him in Berlin at thebeginning of the forties. We know that he had been influenced by the samephilosophic currents which had influenced Marx and Engels. In 1848 he wasconnected with those of the German emigrants in Paris who had organiseda revolutionary legion in order to invade Germany. During the revolutionitself he was in Bohemia where he was trying to unite the Slav revolutionists.He later took a part in the insurrection of the Saxon revolutionists atDresden, was arrested, condemned to death, but handed over to NicholasI, who incarcerated him in the Schlusselburg fortress. A few years later,in the reign of Alexander II, he was exiled to Siberia from which he escaped,making his way through Japan and America back to Europe. This happenedin 1862. At first he plunged into Russian affairs, joined Alexander Herzen(1812-1870) wrote a few pamphlets dealing with Slav and Russian questionsand in which he again insisted upon the necessity of a revolutionary allianceof the Slavs, and made an unsuccessful attempt to join the Polish insurrection.In 1864 he met Marx in London, from whom he learned of the founding ofthe International and to whom he promised his co-operation. He left forItaly, however, where he became engrossed in something entirely different.Bakunin now held the same view that he had in 1848, that is that Marx exaggeratedthe importance of the working class. According to him, the intelligentsia,the student class, the representatives of the bourgeois democracy, particularlyfrom among the middle classes, were a much stronger revolutionary element.While the International was struggling with the difficulties it was atfirst encountering and was gradually becoming the most influential internationalorganisation, Bakunin was trying to organise his own revolutionary societyin Italy. He then migrated to Switzerland, and there joined the bourgeoisLeague for Peace and Freedom, and was even elected to the central committeeof that organisation. In 1868 he left the League, but instead of joiningthe International, he and his friends founded a new society, the InternationalSocial-Democratic Alliance, which came to be generally known as the Alliance.

The new society took a highly revolutionary stand. It declaredimplacable war upon God and the State. It demanded of its members thatthey be atheists. The economic programme was not distinguished by any particularclarity. It demanded the economic and social levelling of all classes.Despite its revolutionary character, the new organisation did not evenpropose a consistent socialist programme; it confined itself to a demandfor the abolition of the right of inheritance. Anxious not to frightenaway members of other classes, it was careful not to stress its definiteclass character. The new society applied to the General Council that itbe taken into the International as a separate organisation, with its ownconstitution and its own programme.

We are now approaching the most embarrassing point. Since Marxwielded a great influence in the General Council, he is usually held responsiblefor all the decisions that were made by the Council. Although this is notalways correct, in this case Marx was chiefly responsible. Thus, if weshould believe not only Bakunin's partisans but even those Marxists whoare inclined to defend the great bungler, though very sincere revolutionist,Bakunin, Marx acted too precipitously when he insisted upon a decisiverefusal. We, of course, are not so soft-hearted as to feel that the refusalto admit into the International a group that was guilty of hobnobbing withthe bourgeoisie was too peremptory.

Let us recall another circumstance. Bakunin sent the programmeof the new Alliance to Marx; he also mailed a personal letter under separatecover. This was about four years after Bakunin had written from Italy promisingto work for the International. It was now disclosed that not only did henot keep his promise, but that he even exerted all his strength in favourof a bourgeois movement. True, he wrote that he now understood better thanhe ever had before how right Marx was in having chosen the broad highwayof economic revolution; he ridiculed those who wandered astray along thepath of purely national and political enterprises. He added with pathos:

"Since taking leave solemnly and publicly from the bourgeoisie at theBerne Congress, I no longer know any other society, any other environment,than the world of the workers. My country is now the International, ofwhich you are one of the most important founders. So you see, my dear friend,that I am your disciple, and proud of my title."

This letter always evokes from Bakunin's friends tears of tenderness anda feeling of indignation against the heartless Marx who so relentlesslypushed away the hand that was stretched out to him. Even Mehring remarkedthat there were no reasons to doubt the sincerity of these assurances.

We do not wish to doubt Bakunin's sincerity. But let us try toplace ourselves in Marx's predicament. He was, to be sure, a hard man,but even Mehring would have to admit that up to the end of 1868 his attitudetoward Bakunin was that of extreme tolerance. The mere reading of it shouldmake it plain why this sentimental letter should have appeared very unconvincingto Marx. It was written not by a youngster, but by a man who was in hisfifties, who once joined the "proletarian world" only to desert it in favourof the "bourgeois world." Now, after having bothered with it for four years,and after having become completely disenchanted, he wished to stride "alongthe broad highway" again by joining the International, and advanced themost incongruous claims. Marx, who had accepted Bakunin too trustinglyin 1864, was now more careful. He was proved to have been right.

When the General Council categorically refused Bakunin's request,the latter announced that his society resolved to disband and to transformits sections, which would continue to hold to their own theoretical programme,into sections of the International. The General Council agreed to admitthe sections of the former Alliance only on a common basis.

It would seem that everything turned out well. But no; very soonMarx developed well-founded suspicions that Bakunin had simply deceivedthe General Council, that having officially disbanded his society, in realityhe left its central organisation intact for the purpose of subsequentlycapturing the International. This is the crux of the whole controversy.We might admit that Marx was not a good-natured man, and that Bakunin wasvery good, even angelic. This is beside the point. We have known for along time that Bakunin was guilty of sundry little sins. All men are sinful.Bakunin's defenders have to answer definitely: Was there or was there notsuch a secret organisation in existence? Did or did not Bakunin permithimself to deceive the General Council when he assured it that he had disbandedhis organisation?

Notwithstanding our love for Marx, we would agree with Bakunin'sfriends in their assertion that Bakunin was maliciously slandered, hadhis friend, the historian of the International, the late Guillaume, provedthat all this was mere fiction. Unfortunately, the Alliance continued toexist and to conduct a stubborn battle with the International. The lovableand good Bakunin did not hesitate to resort to any means which he deemednecessary for the accomplishment of his ends. We shall not hold it againsthim. Yet it appears ridiculous to see his admirers endeavour to make ofhim a man who never had recourse to questionable means and who, as oneof his admirers assures us, was never guilty of any insincerity.

What then was the end which Bakunin felt would justify all themeans? The destruction of bourgeois society, the social revolution -- thiswas what Bakunin aspired to. But Marx's goal was precisely the same. Thediscrepancy must have arisen in a different domain. In reality this sharpdivergence between Marx and Bakunin involves the methodology of revolution.

First destroy, and then everything will take care of itself. Destroy-- the sooner, the better. It would be sufficient to stir up the revolutionaryintelligentsia and the workers embittered through want. The only thingneeded would be a group composed of determined people with the demon ofrevolution in their souls. This was essentially the whole of Bakunin'steachings. On the surface it resembled Weitling's teachings. But the resemblancewas only superficial, as was its resemblance with Blanqui's teachings.The crux of the matter was that Bakunin did not want even to hear of theproletarian seizure of power. He denied any form of political struggleinsofar as it had to be conducted on the ground of the existing bourgeoissociety and was concerned with the creation of more favourable conditionsfor the class organisation of the proletariat. That was why Marx and allthe others who deemed the political struggle and the organisation of theproletariat for the conquest of political power indispensable, appearedto Bakunin and his disciples as wretched opportunists who hindered thecoming of the social revolution. That was also why the Bakuninists wereso ready to seize the opportunity of representing Marx as a man who inorder to materialise his ideas would not hesitate to forge the Constitutionof the International. Publicly, in circulars and letters, the Bakuninistsabused Marx in the most vile language; they did not disdain anti-semiticacts, or even such absurd charges as, for instance, Marx's being the agentof Bismarck.

Bakunin had connections in Italy and Switzerland. In the Frenchregion of Switzerland particularly he had many followers. We cannot atthis point go into a detailed study of the causes of this phenomenon. Hispropaganda was particularly successful among the imported labourers andthe skilled watchmakers who were beginning to suffer from the competitionof the developing industries.

Bakunin came to the Basle Congress backed by a considerable group.As often happens in such cases, the first skirmish broke out on entirelydifferent grounds. Bakunin, who had always been vehemently opposed to anyopportunism, was especially pertinacious in demanding the immediate abolitionof the inheritance right. The delegates from the General Council insistedthat such a measure was, as had been indicated in the Communist Manifesto,important merely as a transition measure which the proletariat would realiseon seizing political power. Meanwhile it would be sufficient to attaina greater tax on wealth and a limited right of inheritance. Bakunin, however,took neither logic nor circumstances into consideration. For him this demandwas important from the propaganda point of view. When it came to a voteneither of the resolutions had enough of a majority. Another conflict arosebetween Bakunin and Liebknecht. It happened that at the Basle Congressa new and significant German group made its appearance for the first time.About this time Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, after a furious factionalstruggle with Schweitzer, had succeeded in organising a separate partywhich had adopted at its constituent convention at Eisenach (1869) theprogramme of the International. Bakunin's activity in the League for Peaceand Freedom and his old Pan-Slavic views were thoroughly thrashed out andunfavourably criticised in the central organ of this party. Mehring pointsout that Marx personally expressed himself against this severe criticism,but, as we have seen in the Vogt episode, he was always held responsiblefor any act of the Marxists. Bakunin utilised the Congress to avenge himselfon Liebknecht. The whole affair ended in a temporary reconciliation.

The next Congress was supposed to take place in Germany. It neverconvened. Immediately after the Basle Congress the political atmospherebecame so dense, that an outbreak of war could be expected at any moment.Bismarck, one of the greatest tricksters in the history of the world, cleverlyduped his former teacher, Napoleon. Having thoroughly prepared Germanyfor war, he so turned the tables that in view of the whole world, Franceappeared the aggressor.

When war actually did break out (July 19, 1870), it was quiteunexpected. Neither the French nor the German workers found themselvesable to prevent it. A few days after the declaration of war (July 23) theGeneral Council published the proclamation written by Marx.

It began with a quotation from the Inaugural Address of the Internationalin which was condemned

"a foreign policy in pursuit of criminal designs, playing upon nationalprejudices and squandering in piratical wars the people's blood and treasure."

Then followed a scathing indictment of Napoleon. Marx presented a compactpicture of his fight against the International which became even more vehementafter the French Internationalists had increased the scope of their violentagitation against Napoleon. Whichever side wins, added Marx, the last hourof the Second Empire had struck. The end of the Empire like its beginningwill be a parody.

But was the guilt only Napoleon's? Not in the least. We must bearin mind that the various governments and the ruling classes of Europe hadfor eighteen years aided Bonaparte in playing the comedy of a reconstructedEmpire.

Marx, a German himself, severely attacked his own country. Fromthe German point of view this was a war of defence. But who had placedGermany in a situation which would require defence? Who evoked in Napoleonthe temptation to attack Germany? Prussia. She had entered into an agreementwith Napoleon against Austria. Should Prussia be defeated, France wouldflood Germany with French soldiers. But what had Prussia herself done afterher victory over Austria? Instead of opposing enslaved France with a liberatedGermany, she not only preserved all the charms of the old Prussian regime,but she even grafted onto it all the characteristic features of the Bonaparteregime.

The first decisive phase of the war terminated with amazing rapidity.The French army proved to be entirely unprepared. Contrary to the boastfuldeclaration of the French Minister of War that everything was ready tothe last button, it became evident that if there really were buttons therewas nothing to which these buttons could be attached. In about six weeksthe regular French army was defeated. On September 2, Napoleon had alreadygiven up both himself and the great fortress of Sedan. On September 4,a republic was declared in Paris. Notwithstanding Prussia's declarationthat she was fighting the Empire, the war continued. It passed into thesecond, more prolonged and more stubborn phase.

Immediately upon the proclamation of a Republic in France, theGeneral Council issued its second Manifesto concerning the war (September9, 1870). It was again written by Marx, and by its profound analysis ofthe historic moment, and its veritable prophetic insight, it representedone of the most inspired pieces of Marx's writings.

We shall recall now that Marx had prognosticated even in the firstManifesto that this war would lead to the destruction of the Second Empire.The second Manifesto started out with a reference to this forecast. Notless correct was the criticism he had previously made of Prussian foreignpolicy. The so-called defensive war degenerated into a war on the Frenchpeople. Long before the fall of Sedan and the capture of Napoleon, as soonas the incredible disintegration of Bonaparte's army had become a knownfact, the Prussian military camarilla declared itself in favour of a policyof conquest. Marx exposed the hypocritical behaviour of the liberal Germanbourgeoisie. Utilising the information supplied by Engels, who as a specialisthad been assiduously following up the development of the war and had foretoldthe fall of Sedan, Marx exposed the fallacious military arguments advancedby Bismarck and the Prussian generals in justification of the annexationof Alsace and Lorraine.

Being opposed to any annexations or indemnities, he maintainedthat such a forced peace would lead to another war.

France would want to regain what she had lost and would seek analliance with Russia. Tsarist Russia which had lost its hegemony afterthe Crimean War would again become the arbiter of the destinies of Europe.This inspired prophecy, this foresight of the direction European historywould take, is a striking and practical proof of the essential truth ofthe materialist conception of history, It is concluded in the followingwords:

"Do the Teuton patriots really believe that liberty and peace willbe guaranteed to Germany by forcing France into the arms of Russia? Ifthe fortune of her arms, the arrogance of success, and dynastic intriguelead Germany to a dismemberment of France, there will then only remaintwo courses open to her. She must at all risks become the avowedtool of Russian aggrandisement, or, after some short respite, make againready for another 'defensive' war, not one of those new-fangled 'localised'wars, but a war of races -- a war with the combined Slavonian andRoman races."

Our contemporary German patriots were fated to see this prophecy come trueto the last letter.

The Manifesto was concluded with an exposition of the practicalproblems that were then confronting the working-class. The German workerswere urged to demand an honourable peace and the recognition of the FrenchRepublic. The French workers, who were in even more difficult straits,were advised to watch the bourgeois republicans vigilantly and to utilisethe Republic for the purpose of rapidly developing their class organisationand achieving their emancipation.

Immediate events fully justified Marx's distrust of the Frenchrepublicans. Their contemptible conduct and their readiness to enter intoan agreement with Bismarck rather than make the slightest concession tothe working class, brought about the Paris Commune (March 18 to May 29,1871). After a heroic struggle that lasted three months, this first experimentin the dictatorship of the proletariat under most unfavourable conditions,failed. The General Council was not in a position to give the Frenchmenthe necessary help. The French and German armies cut Paris from the restof France and the rest of the world. The Commune, indeed, awakened universalsympathy. There were revolutionary responses even in remote Russia.

During the existence of the Commune Marx tried to keep up communicationwith Internationalists in Paris. A few days after the defeat of the CommuneMarx wrote at the request of the General Council the now famous Address8 He stepped forth in defence of the Paris communards who were malignedby the entire bourgeois press. He showed that the Paris Commune was a colossalstep forward in the evolution of the proletarian movement, that it wasthe prototype of the proletarian state which would undertake the realisationof communism. Long before, as a result of the experience of the Revolutionof 1848, Marx had come to the conclusion that the working class, afterhaving seized power, could not simply lay hold of the bourgeois apparatusof the state, but that it would first have to demolish this bureaucraticmachine and the police force upon which it rested. The experience of theCommune proved to him the soundness of his conviction. It proved that havingseized power, the proletariat was forced to create its own machinery ofstate adapted to its own needs. The same experience of the Commune alsoshowed that the proletarian state cannot exist within the limits of evena central city. The power of the proletariat must embrace the whole countryfor it to have any chances of becoming strengthened; it must sweep overa number of capitalist countries in order to be assured of a final victory.

Bakunin and his followers arrived at entirely different conclusions.Their opposition to politics and the state became even more fervent. Theyurged the creation of communes in separate towns as soon as possible; thesecommunes would inspire other towns to follow suit.

The defeat of the Commune brought about very unfavourable consequencesupon the International itself. The French labour movement was paralysedfor a few years. It was represented in the International by a host of communardrefugees amongst whom bitter factional strife was raging. This strife wascarried over into the General Council.

The German labour movement also suffered a serious setback. Bebeland Liebknecht, who protested against the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine,and who had declared their solidarity with the Paris Commune, were arrestedand condemned to confinement in a fortress. Schweitzer who had lost theconfidence of the party was forced to leave it. The followers of Liebknechtand Bebel, the so-called Eisenachers, continued to work independently ofthe Lassalleans. These began to draw nearer to each other only after thegovernment had swooped down with equal ferocity upon the two conflictingfactions. The International thus lost support from the two greatest countrieson the continent.

Moreover, there was a break in the English labour movement too.The war between the two most industrialised continental countries had benefitedthe English bourgeoisie not less than the last European war benefited theAmerican. It was able now to give some share of its enormous profits tonumerous workers in the chief industries. The trade unions gained a greaterfreedom of action. Several of the old laws that had aimed against the unionswere abolished. All this had its effect on a few of the members of theGeneral Council, which had been playing an important part in the trade-unionmovement. To the extent with which the International was becoming moreradical, to the same extent were many of the unions growing more and moremoderate. Utilising their position for personal advantages, they continuedto be members of the General Council only in form. The Commune and thebitter attacks it caused to be brought upon the International frightenedthem. Although the Manifesto dealing with the Paris Commune had been writtenby Marx at the request of the General Council, these members hastened torenounce their association with it. This caused a schism in the Englishsection of the International.

These were the circumstances under which in September, 1871, aconference of the International was called in London. Two chief questionswere taken up at this conference, one of which was the perplexing questionconcerning the struggle on the political field. In connection with this,the question of Marx's forging the Constitution of the International, whichwas pressed by the Bakuninists, was again taken up. The answer given bythe resolution adopted, left not a shadow of a doubt. It indicated thecomplete defeat of the Bakuninists. As it is not widely known, we shallcite the concluding paragraphs:

"In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes everyeffort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends tomaintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political dominationof the propertied classes resulting from it; ...

"That this constitution of the working class into a politicalparty is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social Revolutionand its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes;

"That the combination of forces which the working class has alreadyeffected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve asa lever for its struggles against the political powers of landlords andcapitalists --

"The Conference recalls to the members of the International:

"That in the militant state of the working class, its economicalmovement and its political action are indissolubly united."

The conference had to encounter the Bakuninists on another score. The convictionthat, despite Bakunin's protestations, his secret society continued toexist became firmly established in the General Council. The conferencetherefore adopted a resolution which prohibited any organisation with anindependent programme to function within the body of the International.In connection with this the conference again took cognisance of the Bakuninists'declaration that the Alliance was disbanded and announced that the incidentwas closed.

But there was still another regulation which was intended to causethe discomfiture of Bakunin and his Russian followers. The conference resolvedto declare in the most categorical manner that the International had nothingto do with the Nietchayev affair, that Nietchayev had falsely appropriatedand utilised the name of the International.

This decision was directed exclusively at Bakunin, who, as waswell known, had been for a long time connected with Nietchayev, the Russianrevolutionist who had fled from Russia in March, 1869. In the Fall of thesame year Nietchayev returned to Russia and with Bakunin's authority organiseda special Bakuninist group. Suspecting a certain student, Ivanov, of beinga government spy, Nietchayev, aided by some of his comrades, murdered himand again fled to Europe. Those arrested in connection with this affairwere put on trial in the summer of 1871. At the trial the prosecution madepublic many documents in which there was hopeless confusion as to the relationof Bakunin's society and its Russian branch with the International. Itis enough to compare these documents with Bakunin's writings definitelyto establish their authorship. These documents differed from his proclamationsaddressed to his European comrades by their greater frankness. The passagescorrected and added by Nietchayev could be easily distinguished by thegreater coarseness and carelessness of presentation.

This affair has been generally interpreted in the following way.Bakunin, it had been claimed, fell under the influence of Nietchayev whotricked him and used him for his own purposes.

Indeed, Nietchayev, a poorly educated man, who rejected all theoryas sterile, was endowed with extraordinary energy, an iron will, and anunshakable devotion to the revolution. At the trial and in prison he showedhis staunch manliness and his unquenchable hatred for the oppressors andthe ex plotters of the people. Ready to do anything, regarding any meansgood if he thought they would help him reach the goal to which he had dedicatedhis life, he never stooped to baseness for personal reasons. In this respecthe was incomparably superior to Bakunin, the latter never having hesitatedto enter into any deals if they furthered his personal aims. Nietchayev'smoral superiority is beyond doubt. Everything points to the fact that Bakuninhimself was fully conscious of this, else how could Bakunin respect andvalue so highly a man who was his intellectual inferior.

Yet it would have been naive to deduce from all this that Nietchayevhad imposed his revolutionary views on Bakunin. The converse is more nearlythe truth; he was a disciple of Bakunin. But while our apostle of ruinproved himself to be an inconsistent character and an unstable revolutionist,Nietchayev was distinguished by his iron consistency; he made all the practicaldeductions from the theoretical propositions of his master. When Bakunintold him that he, Bakunin, could not refuse to do the work he had undertaken(a translation of Capital) because he had received money in advance,Nietchayev offered to free him of this obligation. This he accomplishedin a very simple fashion. He wrote to the intermediary between Bakuninand the publisher demanding in the name of the revolutionary committee,"The People's Revenge," that the gentleman leave Bakunin alone if he didnot wish to be killed.

Since, instead of the workers engaged in large industries, hehad always stressed the lumpenproletariat as the real carriers ofthe social revolution, since he had regarded criminals and robbers as themost desirable elements to be attracted into the revolutionary ranks, hisdisciple, Nietchayev, quite consistently arrived at the conclusion thatit was necessary to organise a group of desperadoes in Switzerland forthe purposes of expropriation. Bakunin finally parted with his disciple,not because of a dfference in principles, but because he was awed by Nietchayev'sdirectness. Bakunin never dared to make this separation public; Nietchayevwas in possession of too many compromising documents.

Immediately after the London Conference a still more savage battlebroke out. The Bakuninists declared open war against the General Council.They accused it of shuffling the conference and of foisting upon the Internationalthe dogma of the necessity of organising the proletariat into a specialparty for the purpose of gaining political power. They demanded anotherCongress where this question would be definitely settled.

This Congress for which both parties had been preparing most feverishly,convened in September, 1872. For the first time Marx was present in person.Bakunin was absent. The resolution of the Conference dealing with politicalaction was ratified. There was one small addition which was lifted verbatimfrom the Inaugural Address of the International. It read:

"Since the owners of land and capital are always using their politicalprivileges to protect and perpetuate their economic monopolies and to enslavelabour, the great duty of the proletariat is to conquer the political power."

A special commission which examined all the documents pertaining to theAlliance came to the conclusion that this society had been existing asa secret organisation within the International, and proposed Bakunin'sand Guillaume's expulsion. The proposal was accepted.

The resolution dealing with Bakunin's expulsion declared thatbesides the above-mentioned grounds Bakunin was expelled for a "personalreason." This referred to the Nietchayev incident. It seems that the Congresshad ample reasons for excluding Bakunin on purely political grounds. Itis ludicrous, however, to turn this sad episode in which Bakunin was thevictim of his own lack of character into a cause for terrible accusationsagainst Marx. It is still more ludicrous when the whole affair is construedin the following manner. Bakunin, it is asserted, had done what many otherliterary men are doing -- he had failed to perform the work for which thepublisher had paid him. Was this swindling? Of course not. But when Bakunin'sdefenders insist that Marx should not have blamed Bakunin, then it seemsthat either they do not understand or they forget, that the question wasnot at all as to whether Bakunin did or did not return to the publisherthe money he had received in advance. The question was much more serious.Where Bakunin and his friends saw merely a fickle yet pardonable transgressionwhich resulted only in a loss to the publisher, the members of the commissionwho had all the documents at their disposal felt that it was a criminalmisuse of the name of a revolutionary organisation which had been in theminds of most people connected with the International; a misuse for personalreasons, for the purpose of freeing himself from meeting his pecuniaryobligations. Had the document which was in the hands of the commissionbeen made public at that time, it would have afforded the greatest satisfactionto the bourgeois world. It was written by Nietchayev; its contents, however,were not only not contrary to Bakunin's principles, they were in fact infull harmony with them. We must add that Bakunin parted with Nietchayevnot because of this affair but because it appeared to him that Nietchayevwas ready to regard even him as an instrument for the attainment of revolutionaryaims. Bakunin's letters to his friends illustrate adequately how unceremoniouslyBakunin would hurl not only political but also personal accusations athis opponents, among whom Marx was included. We know now that it was Bakuninwho was the author of the notorious guide for revolutionists which wasattributed to Nietchayev and which, when made public at the trial, evokedgeneral indignation in the ranks of the revolutionists. Bakunin's friendsobstinately denied his authorship; they piled it all up against Nietchayev.

The Hague Congress was ended with Engels' proposal that the permanentresidence of the General Council be transferred to New York. We have alreadyseen that at this time the International lost its moorings not only inFrance, where since 1872 the mere belonging to the International was heldto be a crime, and not only in Germany, but also in England. It was presumedthat the transfer of the International would be a temporary one. It turnedout, however, that the Hague Congress was the last one that had any significancein the history of the International. In 1876 the General Council in NewYork published the notice that the First International ceased to exist.