Karl Kautsky, Englische Gewerkschaftsbeamte und internationale Solidarität, Leipziger Volkszeitung, 12. Jg., Nr. 130, 4. Beilage, Donnerstag, 8. Juni 1905.
https://digital.slub-dresden.de/data/kitodo/LeipVo_394414608-19050608/LeipVo_394414608-19050608_tif/jpegs/00000015.tif.original.jpg.
Translation/Transcription: Daniel Gaido.
HTML Mark-up: Einde O’Callaghan for MIA.
As is well known, remarks were made at the Cologne trade union congress by various parties that did not sound particularly edifying. At the time, there was no end to the self-righteous indignation over the ‘poor tone’ in Dresden; and yet not a single word was spoken there that came anywhere near matching Leimpeters’s ‘achievements’ – for example, to highlight just the most striking one, his comparison of the resolutions of international congresses with the Chinese and the Botokuden. [1]
Now the trade union side is attempting to excuse these embarrassing remarks. This is presumably how one should interpret the comments made by thl. (Theodor Leipart?) in the Trade union review supplement of the Schwäbische Tagwacht on 3 June 1905.
This endeavour is quite understandable, and in itself there could be not the slightest objection to it; only, the excuse should not be made at the expense of other people – that is to say, at our expense. The Leipziger Volkszeitung and Die neue Zeit, which already have so many people’s ‘bad behaviour’ on their conscience, are now also to be held responsible for the bad behaviour of Leimpeter and his ilk!
thl. (Theodor Leipart) writes:
“It may be conceded that in the debates some strong words could have been avoided, but in one respect they can be explained by the defensive position in which the speakers found themselves. Certain remarks made at the last party congress in Bremen were certainly capable of provoking a tense atmosphere. The same applies to the issue of the Leipziger Volkszeitung distributed at the congress, containing Kautsky’s article on the general strike and the May Day celebrations, in which, amongst other things, reference is made to the ‘laziness, narrow-mindedness and limited outlook of the English trade union officials’. At the same time, Adolf Braun had expressed the view in the issue of Die neue Zeit, which was also distributed, that the congress would give greater expression to the views of the Central Executive Committees than to those of the members, because the trade union officials present as delegates were all too dependent on their executive committees! These harsh words were bound to have a provocative effect at the congress.”
So, Adolf Braun and I are the scapegoats! Had we not written such provocative, harsh words, a completely different tone would have prevailed in Cologne!
When I came across this, I read Braun’s article again in astonishment; on my first reading, I had found only the warmest sympathy for the trade unions’ cause and the most heartfelt appreciation “for the great strength and ability that exists within our trade unions”.
In vain did I try to recall a single word that would be harsh enough to rile up an entire congress of men with calloused workers’ fists – not neurasthenic literati – to such an extent that it would resort to ‘strong words’ which its participants themselves would later regret – for that is, after all, what the apology from thl. (Theodor Leipart) implies.
Let us now hear the ‘harsh words’ written by our friend Braun:
“It is therefore not surprising that at the next trade union congress the number of trade union officials is likely to be considerably greater than the number of party officials has ever been at any party congress. Now, the party official is almost always more independent of the party leadership and more influenced by the local party membership within which he operates than the trade union official, who maintains much closer ties with his central executive committee than, say, a party editor does with his regional executive committee or the party executive. One might therefore surmise that the trade union congress will sometimes give greater expression to the views of the central executive committees than to the views, opinions and sentiments of the trade union members, insofar as these do not coincide. Of course, one must not imagine that the central executive committees and the delegates feel independent of the sentiments of the trade union members they represent; they are accountable for their votes to their next trade union congresses; just like party conference delegates, they are subject to the criticism of those who send them, as well as to the judgement of their own trade union press, nor are they indifferent to the views expressed in the political party press. All these are reasons why, even where conclusions drawn from a trade union perspective differ from those of the Social Democrats, the resolutions should not diverge from one another as greatly as is sometimes feared.” [2]
Where in this can one find a single word suggesting any malicious intent? Above all, where is the assertion referred to by thl. (Theodor Leipart), namely that the “trade union officials present as delegates are all too dependent on their executive committees”? Braun explains: The trade union official maintains much closer ties with his central executive committee than, for example, a party editor does with his regional executive committee or the party executive! Is that not an undeniable fact? Where, then, is the insult, where is the harsh word? Thl. (Theodor Leipart) first had to make this up to himself; he first had to invent the assertion that trade union officials were all too dependent on their executive committees in order to have a reason to portray the ‘strong words’ from Cologne as the product of a defence mounted by offended innocence.
My words were, admittedly, far harsher than Braun’s. But were they aimed at German trade union officials or at English ones? The Germans could only have felt provoked by them if they had declared themselves in solidarity with the English on every point. Yet it was merely the conclusion drawn from deliberations by German trade unionists that I had expressed in my words. I remarked in the Leipziger Volkszeitung:
“It was precisely at some of the most recent congresses of German trade unions that the realisation emerged starkly that the laziness, arrogance and narrow-mindedness of English trade union officials render them completely unsuitable for maintaining international trade union relations.” [3]
What I was conveying with these words are the experiences that German trade union officials have had with their English counterparts, and the complaints that German trade union officials have voiced about their English counterparts; experiences and complaints that are as old as the attempts by German trade unionists to join forces with their English counterparts in international action, and which bear the main responsibility for the fact that trade union internationalism has so far borne so little fruit.
It was therefore not my experiences that I was recounting here, but those of German trade union officials. However, I had all the less hesitation in presenting them in such a blunt manner, as they corresponded entirely to what I myself had experienced in England regarding the English trade union officials, and to what Marx – now, of course, merely a dead writer – had already stated a generation ago. At the Hague Congress (1872), as is well known, he had declared that it was a mark of honour not to be a recognised labour leader in England; for every recognised labour leader there was in the pay of Gladstone, Morley, Dilke and their ilk, that is to say, the literati (cf. Jaeckh, Die Internationale, p. 191). And in 1874 he wrote to Kugelmann:
“In England, only the rural labour movement is currently making progress; the industrial workers must, above all, rid themselves of their present leaders. When I denounced those fellows at the Hague Congress, I knew that I would thereby bring upon myself unpopularity, slander, and so on. But I have always been indifferent to such consequences. Here and there, people are beginning to realise that, in making these denunciations, I am merely fulfilling a duty.” [4]
Since then, nothing has changed in this regard, save that the corruption of the English trade union movement and its leaders has continued unabated, and these ‘denunciations’ – that is, accusations against English trade union officials – have become, more than ever, the duty of every resolute Social Democrat both within and outside England.
Of course, as everywhere, there are exceptions even amongst English trade union officials, but it is precisely these exceptions who suffer all the more from the rule and who will most readily support the accusations levelled against the general type. I have nothing to retract from what I have said; merely by way of clarification, I would like to point out that by the ‘laziness’ of English trade union officials I did not mean laziness in their narrow professional duties; I do not know how they get through their office hours; they may well be very diligent in that respect. But they are lazy when it comes to any activity for which they are not paid, and which lies outside their daily routine; they are sluggish and resistant to any idea that goes beyond the practical business at hand.
It is bad enough when German trade union officials feel obliged to defend their English colleagues simply because they are colleagues. But I will not allow this to deprive me of the right to denounce any fellow who, whilst serving the working class, uses his position of trust to betray them, to demoralise them, and to sell them out to their worst enemies. If such enemies of the struggling proletariat are trade union officials – that is to say, if they are paid for their work by the workers themselves – this should not render them immune, but only reinforce our duty to denounce them and warn the proletariat against them.
But even if my accusation had been entirely unfounded, it could at most have prompted the trade unionists in Cologne to protest against me in the name of international courtesy. The ‘defence’ could not possibly have justified their ridiculing and denigrating the international congresses and their resolutions. But I do not mean to say that there is no intrinsic connection between my accusations against the English trade union officials and Leimpeter’s attack on the Chinese and the Botocudos; it is simply of a different nature to that which Mr Leimpeter believes. When Leimpeters places the majority of non-German proletarians on a par with Botocudos, this is vividly reminiscent of the arroge and narrow-mindedness towards foreign countries that I have criticised in the English trade union officials. If one thinks of international solidarity in this way, it stands to reason that one would feel personally targeted – and therefore provoked – by the characterisation of the English trade union officials.
So, the situation is actually the other way round: it was not because I accused the English trade union officials that Leimpeters was driven in the ‘defence’ to deny any form of international solidarity, but rather because he loathes it; that is why he feels a kinship with the English trade union officials and feels hurt and provoked by the criticism levelled at them.
Until now, however, I had assumed that the Leimpeters case was a completely isolated phenomenon in the German trade union world. Does the article by thl. (Theodor Leipart?) in the Schwäbische Tagwacht suggest that, in the circles of Stuttgart trade union officials, there is a sense of solidarity with Leimpeters and his English like-minded colleagues?
I assume that this is not the case. What reason, then, does thl. (Theodor Leipart?) have for going to such lengths on behalf of the “strong words” from Cologne and the English trade union officials?
Karl Kautsky.
1. Botokuden (also spelled Botocudos) is the historical Portuguese name for the Aimoré, an Indigenous people of southeastern Brazil known for wearing wooden lip and ear plugs (botoques).
2. Adolf Braun, Der Kölner Gewerkschaftskongress, Die neue Zeit, 23. Jg., 2. Bd. (10. Mai 1905), H. 33, S. 204–211. (quote from pp. 206–207).
http://library.fes.de/cgi-bin/neuzeit.pl?id=07.05534&dok=1904-05b&f=190405b_0204&l=190405b_0211.
3. Karl Kautsky, Maifeier und Generalstreik, Leipziger Volkszeitung, 12. Jg., Nr. 115, 20. Mai
1905.
https://digital.slub-dresden.de/data/kitodo/LeipVo_394414608-19050520/LeipVo_394414608-19050520_tif/jpegs/00000017.tif.original.jpg.
4. Gustav Jaeckh, Die Internationale, Leipzig: Verlag der Leipziger Buchdruckerei Aktiengesellschaft, 1904.
https://archive.org/details/sc_0000960648_00000001704675.
Last updated on 14 September 2026
