Rise of the working class
Source: Labor College lecture
First published: Labor College Review, November 1986
Transcription, mark-up: Steve Painter
The 1848 defeats suffered by the workers brought a period of political stagnation. However, vigorous economic development brought a big influx into the working class and as a result more powerful organisations began to develop, although on a somewhat different basis to that of 1848.
By 1859 capitalism had extended from Britain and France to the more backward countries, breaking through pre-capitalist production, bringing ruin to the peasantry and urban petty bourgeoisie and so creating the property-less working class essential for capitalist industry.
Britain forged far ahead of other countries in industrial development and by 1859 her town dwellers were more than half the total population. Coal production increased from 10 million tons in 1800 to 61 million by 1855. Production of iron increased from 1,390,000 tons in 1840 to 3,218,000 tons in 1855. The number of spindles employed in textile production, two million in 1832 grew to 28 million by 1858. Railway mileage in the ten years from 1854 increased from 8034 to 12,787. By 1851, says David Thomson, (England in the 19th Century): “Britain was industrialised, mechanised and urbanized, and was known as the workshop of the world”. Her exports of £71,000,000 in 1850 increased to £200,000,000 by 1870, while imports in the same period grew from £100,000,000 to £300,000,000. The gap between imports and exports was bridged by invisible exports, shipping, banking and insurance services. Changes in capitalist organisation were also necessary to meet the growing expansion of the productive forces. Firms controlled by families gave way to limited liability companies run by salaried managers, and by 1864 many of these had developed further into joint stock companies.
By 1880, G.M. Trevelyan notes in English Social History, 75 per cent of corn consumed by Britain came from overseas, citing as a reason for that American methods of mass production of crops by a simpler and cheaper process that undercut the elaborate and expensive methods of farming built up on English estates. He adds however: “An even more important consequence has been the general divorce of Englishmen from life in contact with nature, which in all previous ages had helped to form the mind and imagination of the island race.”
In France coal production of 4,904,000 tons in 1852 had increased to 10,317,000 tons by 1862. Iron output in the same period increased from 522,000 tons to 1,091,000. Railway mileage in 1840 of 1832km grew to 9439 by 1862. As already noted, small-scale industry predominated in France.
German capitalism made rapid progress after 1848, having settled problems of national unification as in Italy their productive resources greatly increased.
Capitalist development was not only confined to Europe, it spread to North America and at the period we are studying was becoming a world system. Having examined industrial progress in the countries of Europe, we must now examine the labour movements respectively as it is the methods and progress of production that enable us to understand the differences and conflict in thought of the labour movement.
Suffering from the defeats of the Chartists, the labour movement in England made little headway through the 1850s. Other conditions against its revival were:
(a) The big stream of emigration to the United States and Australia (something like two million in two years) in which some of the most energetic elements of the labour movement were lost.
(b) Comparatively high wages and infrequency of unemployment.
(c) Organisation on narrow craft lines causing disunity.
(d) The 1848 defeats brought fear of political action. Besides, industrial development led to industrial organisation and thought. Trade unions, co-operatives etc, were considered the answer to the huge industrial development, while politically labour organisations were prepared to follow the radical bourgeoisie, in this case the Liberals.
By 1851 the co-operative movement had 130 stores. It developed wholesale trading as well as retail, production and distribution. In 1864 the Cooperative Wholesale Society was formed in Manchester. Its profits by 1866 exceeded £20,000 and its membership by 1870 was 250,000 which grew to 805,000 by 1889.
An economic crisis in 1859 brought a wave of strikes in resistance to attempts by employers to place the burdens of the crisis on the workers. The most important of those strikes were those of the building workers in 1859 and 1861. Resulting from these struggles, attempts were made to eliminate craft narrowness in organisation and to organise on a larger scale. The first London Trades Council was formed in 1861 and the first Trade Union Congress was held at Manchester in 1868.
Savage reprisals against the workers after the struggles of 1848 dealt a heavy blow to militancy in the ranks of labour. The theories of Pierre Joseph Proudhon gained considerable influence. We have already explained this ideology but reproduce the salient points. Proudhon opposed capitalism, but not its methods of product, only its exchange, hence its main drive was to organise mutual credit societies, co-operatives, etc. Proudhon opposed socialism: “Social ownership is crude tyranny,” and a communist society “a society of slaves”. Proudonists opposed political struggle and strike action and urged passivity towards the state. A keen advocate of private property, Proudhon stated his social ideal to be a society of small producers acting as independent producers of commodities wholly free from the social cancer of capitalism: “A society without masters.” Proudhon’s ideas fitted the small-scale productive methods of France and they became the dominant factor in the French labour movement.
Blanquists were small in numbers but still a force to be reckoned with. The limitation on their support was no doubt the fact that they paid no heed to social or economic questions. They remained a conspiratorial group awaiting a favourable moment to bring about a coup d’etat to transform society.
The rapid growth of capitalism in Germany by the 1860s transformed it into a highly developed industrial country and brought into existence a labour movement. In 1862 a central committee was set up at Leipzig to convene a national labour conference. A radical politician, Ferdinand Lassalle, undertook the task of drawing up a program in which he advocated a complete break with the liberal bourgeoisie and the formation of an independent workers’ organisation. The program was accepted and in 1863 at Leipzig, and the Union of German Workers was formed with Lassalle as president.
Lassalle knew the Marxist position and accepted a great deal of it but he differed from Marx on the class struggle and relied on negotiations with sections of the bourgeoisie to gain concession for the workers. He attached considerable importance to the ballot box, which he considered the only means of abolishing class contradictions.
A second organisation of the German workers was the Social Democratic Labor Party founded at Eisenach in 1869. Its leaders were Wilhelm Leibknecht (1826-1900) and August Bebel (1840-1914). This organisation stood closer to Marxism and maintained a greater interest in internationalism.
A revival of labour activities took place in England and France in the 1860s. The American Civil War (1861-65) had caused a cotton famine for Europe. The textile industry was severely hit and unemployment became prevalent. The London Trades Council organised assistance for the unemployed and similar steps were taken in France. These two committees communicated with each other to organise joint action. This became the first step in international co-operation.
A second event in the same direction was the Polish insurrection against Russia in 1863. The workers in most European countries agitated in favour of Poland, and in England and France meetings and demonstrations to the government demanded aid to Poland. In the same year an international gathering to declare sympathy with Poland met in London. At this meeting the English trade unionists suggested a joint discussion on the necessity for maintaining constant contact between themselves and the continent to combat employers’ attempts to lower wages by importing cheap labour from France, Belgium and Germany. The English section drew up a statement which it sent to the French workers, in which is contained the following passage:
The fraternity of the people is of the utmost importance to the workers, for whenever we try to improve our position by shortening the working day or raising wages, the capitalists threaten to bring in French, Belgian and German workers, who will do our work for lower wages — Unfortunately, this threat is often put into execution.
A French delegation came to London in September 1864 with the French reply, which followed the lines of Proudhon but urged on the workers of all countries to unite because: “Capital is being concentrated in the hands of powerful financial groups, if we do not fight against this, it will meet with no opposition and we shall be exposed to despotic rule.”
On September 28 a meeting with the French delegation took place in London and the statement of the English trade unionists and the French reply was accepted as the basis for the formation of the International Workingmen’s Association. A committee selected to draw up a program and statutes consisted of English and French workers and German and Italian emigrants living in London. Karl Marx was elected to the committee, which consisted of trade unionists, Owenites, Chartists, Proudhonists, Blanquists, Polish and Italian national revolutionaries, etc. Marx was requested to draw up the program and statutes — a most difficult task considering the conflicting strands of opinion that had to be satisfied, but one that he accomplished with brilliance. His inaugural address and the statutes were accepted by the committee and became the foundation of the First International.
A complete report of these statements can be read in G.M. Steklov’s History of the First International. Here we can only give the basic points, which are sufficient for the student to see that while the writing is different to that of 1848, having regard to the changing situation from that period, nevertheless the basic principles of the Communist Manifesto are unchanged.
The address stated:
1. Despite tremendous growth of industry and trade, distress among workers had not diminished.
2. Two victories were gained by the working class in England a) the ten-hour bill; and b) the development of cooperatives. “The ten-hour act was not merely a great practical victory; it was also the triumph of a principle. For the first time in the full light of day, the political economy of the bourgeoisie submitted to the political economy of the working class.” Of the co-operatives the address said: “For the first time was demonstrated, in deeds instead of arguments, the possibility of large-scale undertakings organised and managed without the bourgeoisie.” However, this could not stay the development of capitalism or emancipate the working class.
3. Emancipation of the proletariat requires seizure of political power. The statutes declared: “The emancipation of the working class must be conquered by the workers themselves … That the economical subjection of the man of labour to the monopoliser of the means of labour, that is, the sources of life, lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation and political dependence … 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.”
Each country formed its section of the international managed by a national federated council. International congresses were convened periodically to discuss important questions and elect the general council, whose task was to provide ideological leadership. The first congress was held at Geneva in September 1866. In discussion on ratification of the statutes the Proudhonists argued against strikes and wanted them replaced by mutual aid societies. This was rejected.
A thesis on trade unions written by Marx was adopted. It argued that trade unions were not only organisations for waging the economic struggle but for the abolition of wage labour altogether. Also adopted were demands for the restoration of the independence of Poland, an eight-hour working day and special protection for female and juvenile labour.
The first congress caused considerable of interest and press publicity. The Trade Union Congress at Sheffield in 1866 adopted a resolution of “unqualified appreciation of the efforts of the International to unite the workers of all countries by the common bond of fraternity”. Sections were organised in France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Belgium and England.
The second congress was held at Lausanne in 1867 and the third at Brussels in 1868. These congresses witnessed the struggle between Marxist and Proudhonist ideas.
At the second congress a Proudhonist resolution on credit and people’s banks was adopted and an effort was made to draw the trade unions into setting up national credit organisations.
A document on the necessity of the workers winning political power was considered one of the most important to be carried. The International’s assistance to strikes in France at the time of the second congress induced Napoleon III to declare the French section illegal but this had the effect of increasing the influence of the International and bringing about a decline of Proudhonist influence.
When, at the third congress, a call for strike action was decided upon in the event of war, which appeared to be inevitable between France and Prussia, the Proudhonists were induced to agree.
The third congress also adopted a resolution on property, which stated: “The economic development of modern society makes the transformation of the land into social property a social necessity. The state should lease the land to agricultural communities on the same conditions as mines and railways.”.
Another document stated that “means of communication and transport must become the collective property of society”. This congress also carried a resolution of greetings to Marx, who had just published his first volume of Capital, in the following words: “Karl Marx had rendered an invaluable service in being the first economist to subject capital to a scientific analysis.”.
The Brussels Congress marked the decline in Proudhonists influence, but a far greater opposing force was to develop in the person of Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76). A Russian anarchist, Bakunin aimed at the destruction of the state, which would end capitalism automatically. Instead of interesting oneself in the day-to-day struggle, preparation should be made for insurrection. He advocated collective ownership of land, mines and industrial undertakings.
Instead of class struggle, Bakunin advocated political economic and social equality of all classes. He held that Marx exaggerated the importance of the proletariat and considered the driving forces of revolution to be those sections of the population whose sufferings were particularly great and whom modern society had driven to despair. Bakunin’s influence was strong in Italy, Switzerland and Spain. He founded the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy and endeavoured to join the International, whereupon the alliance declared itself dissolved and its members joined the International as individuals.
The fourth congress at Basle (1869) had an addition of delegates from North America and Spain. The first clash with Bakunin came on his resolution on the abolition of the right of inheritance. In argument, Bakunin stressed that inheritance “made political and economic justice impossible and prevented the establishment of social equality”. The general council in opposition stated that inheritance was not the cause but a result of the existing economic order. Bakunin carried the fight into the sections and caused a split in Switzerland.
In July 1870, war broke out between France and Prussia, preventing the congress of the International, which was due to in Germany. The French and German sections protested vigorously against the war and the general council issued an appeal to all countries, placing responsibility for the war on the ruling classes, Bonapartist France and Junker Prussia.
Another appeal after the collapse of the French armies, issued in September 1870, protested against the annexations of the Germany bourgeoisie of Alsace and Lorraine. The German members of the International fought courageously. Bebel and Leibknecht were accused of high treason and sentenced to two years imprisonment. The sections in Belgium, Switzerland and Austria held meetings of protest against German annexations.
On March 18, 1871, Paris set up a commune to resist the Prussian invasion. This, and the part played by the International will be the subject of our next paper, we will pass now to the events after the Commune and the end of the International.
The rapid advance of capitalism in England drew the workers away from political activity. Some unions broke with the International because of its defence of the Paris Commune, and interest in the International declined. Tremendous super-profits enabled the bourgeoisie to split the workers with higher wages for some sections of the class.
A bitter struggle developed between Marx and Bakunin over the significance of the Commune. For Marx, the Paris uprising represented a government of the working class: the political form at last discovered in which the economic emancipation of the working class could be consummated. For Bakunin the Commune upheld his ideas on the denial of the state. For him, the great mistake of the Commune was its attempt to establish a revolutionary dictatorship in Paris.
A congress of the International in London in September 1871 adopted a resolution against Bakunin, stating: “The organisation of the proletariat in a political party is essential to secure the triumph of the social revolution and its main object, the abolition of classes.”
Bakunin set up an independent organisation in Switzerland called the Jura Federation. Its appeal to other sections of the International accused the general council of packing meetings, and it won over majorities in the Italian, Spanish and Belgian sections. In September 1872 the fifth Congress of the International, held at The Hague, expelled Bakunin and reiterated the need for an independent party of the workers.
Marx and Engels both suggested that the seat of the International be transferred to New York. They were prompted to this by the view that the International had outlived its usefulness and needed to be sent far away to prevent it falling under the influence of Bakunin and the English trade unionists.
This move was adopted by a majority of only two votes. The French Blanquists withdrew demonstratively, declaring: “The International is taking refuge from the revolution across the Atlantic.”
The Sixth Congress, held at Geneva, was a failure, and the last. In July 1876 a conference at Philadelphia dissolved the International.
In 1874, ten years after the International’s foundation, Engels wrote to Friedrich Sorge:
From one point of view — from the point of view of the future — the International has for ten years dominated European
But in its old form it has outlived itself … I think that the next International — after Marx’s works have had some time to exert their influence — will be directly communist and will spread our principles.