—68— Citizen von Vollmar takes the chair.
Before starting the agenda, Citizen Bebel informs the Congress that suspicious persons who have smuggled themselves among the deputies are trying to persuade the Germans that they can speak freely in Paris without using any caution at all; they could not be called to answer before any German tribunal for what they said in France — even if it were against the law on lèse majesty. Citizen Bebel urged the German delegates to be on their guard and not to allow themselves to be provoked by such obvious agents provocateurs.
After the meeting has been informed of the arrival of new delegates, telegrams, letters of approval and a donation of 100 francs from the Dutch delegates for the victims of St. Etienne, Citizen Lafargue describes the behavior of the French press towards the congress. Apparently a resolution has been circulated to keep deadly silent about this Congress, while the congress of the Possibilists is being puffed up and flattered. In contrast, the English press is much more decent.
Citizen Liebknecht adds that most of the German papers have treated the congress with outrageous indecency. The “Frankfurter Zeitung”, an allegedly democratic paper, is characterized above all by its lying reports and the meanness with which they besmirch Lafargue and Guesde with filth.
Another German newspaper recounts how citizen Anseele, delegate of Ghent, fled that city taking the Vooruit's strong box, which allegedly contained 160,000 francs.
Citizen Christensen, Danish delegate, informs the Congress that a great strike has broken out among the carpenters of Copenhagen. The fault lies with the employers who, in a breach of formal contracts, united to lower wages, which are already quite bad enough. As a result of these strikes, 7 workshops are closed and around 1200 workers are unemployed. The workers demand a wage of 20 francs a week.
Citizen Palmgreen, delegate of the Swedish socialist party and the “socialist Scandinavian circle of Paris”, begins his report by discussing how it happened that he, who lives in Paris, represents the workers' party of his homeland at the congress — the editors of the 4 socialist papers, as well as 6 to 10 of the best agitators are at the moment in prison.
Socialist propaganda encounters great difficulties in Sweden; it is universally carried out during the summer, which is not long, by organizing excursions around the country. The labour movement is still quite young. A large strike in the sawmills, which did not succeed, drove the workers to organize. It was the tailor Palm who first spread social democratic theories among the workers in Sweden. With indefatigable zeal and admirable sacrifice, this man organized propaganda meetings in deep winter, often in the middle of the woods. Three times he made his way across Sweden on foot, handing out brochures and leaflets, and sowing the good seed everywhere. He founded the “Social Democrat” in Stockholm, which currently has 5 to 6,000 subscribers. At the same time he was collecting (with Branting and Danielson) young people who, like him, were enthusiastic about socialist ideas and —69— in recruiting only from the ranks of the workers, but also from those of the students. In the beginning the party occupied itself almost exclusively with political agitation, but since the workers have organized themselves in unions, economic and social questions have predominated. In the spring of this year there was a party congress in Stockholm, at which 75 organizations were represented. This congress had almost the same agenda and the same program as the current international congress. At this congress it was decided to use legal demonstrations etc. to make propaganda in favour of achieving labour protection legislation. In Sweden, as in Austria, the laws are very liberal in form, but as soon as the labour movement wants to take advantage of them, the state will find a reactionary interpretation. In spite of all the guaranteed freedoms, the workers must often resort to cunning in order to organize their associations.
However, all these difficulties have not been able to prevent socialism from penetrating not only into the masses of the industrial workers, but also into those of the rural masses. Today the peasants and the workers of the cities support one another in the common struggle.
The Swedish state too is on the point of creating an exceptional law against the socialists, stunning evidence of the strength the movement has acquired in a short period of time. Meanwhile, the state ruthlessly uses all means, even the lowest and most shameful, to stop socialist propaganda. The letters of the socialists pass through the Black Room and socialist telegrams are not always accepted by the telegraph offices. The oppression is helping to change the character of the workers‘ movement, which is becoming more and more strictly socialist. The belief in the effectiveness of palliative measures has almost completely disappeared among the workers; the conviction is becoming more and more general that only the socialization of the means of production can solve the social question. In pursuit of this end we endeavor to avoid acts of violence, but the bourgeoisie will eventually drive things to a point where disasters set in. The Swedish socialists are well aware that the important question is to organize the power of the workers. Nothing is achieved by shouting “Long live the revolution!”; one has to act, and make the workers strong enough to fight for their rights. Certainly, we are for the revolution, i.e. for the radical transformation of the relations of production, but this revolution must be well prepared and carried out according to a plan. The organs of the Socialist workers’ party of Sweden are: “The Proletarian”, “The Social Democrat” and “The People’s Voice”; they all come out in Stockholm. Organizations abroad that belong to it, the clubs and circles of Swedish workers who live abroad, are in a sense schools in which the members can be trained to be speakers and agitators. The Scandinavian socialist circle in Paris, which Citizen Palmgreen also represents, has 85 members. (Bravo.) —
Citizen Kirchner , delegate of the “United German Trade Unions of New York”, says that one encounters the most contradictory views about the workers’ movement and about the situation of working people in the new world. At the moment, he continues, I cannot give you a complete report, supported by statistical figures, because there was only a few days gap between my selection as delegate and my departure for Paris. So it is less of a report than a sketch that I can give, and this sketch will appear a bit colourless and gloomy next to the fresh and splendid picture of the German workers’ movement that Citizen Bebel has drawn for us.
—70— In America capitalist production has reached such a level of development that one has the right to ask: "How much longer will it last?"
The capitals of small capitalists are no longer sufficient for the profitable exploitation of the working masses. Capitals are therefore heaped up on top of one another, and formal armies of capital are created. The monopolies and the trusts have driven the 19th century system of robbery to its peak, in industry as well as in agriculture. The power of the organized proletariat is not yet equal to the ever more concentrated power of capital. The wages and with them the living conditions of working people fall continuously. All or almost all attempts to raise wages fail, as evidenced by the truly heroic attempts of the coal miners, the textile workers, the New York tram workers. In America, as everywhere else, the hyena of capital is no longer content with adult marrow, but devours everything that falls into its claws regardless of age or sex. In order not to be accused of exaggeration, I will quote an excerpt from the “Third Annual Report of the Factory Inspectors of New York State”:
In New York, the report says, in the districts of tenement-houses where clothes are made, there is a labour system that comes as close as possible to slavery. The work is carried out supervised by overseers, who rent up to two small rooms on the upper floors of a high building and set up a few sewing machines and an oven to heat the iron for ironing. They hire a certain number of men and women to work for them. These workers usually start the day at half past seven and sew up to 9 or 10 in the evening, with perhaps half an hour’s break for lunch. They usually eat and sleep in the same room in which they work, and the oppressive and bad atmosphere which always surrounds them, and the filth in which they vegetate, is appalling. Thousands of young girls and boys as well as women have been passed on to this existence of filth, rubbish and humiliation. There is no ray of hope for them!
The wages they receive are extremely low, but the little they earn still gets deductions in the form of fines for work that is declared unsatisfactory, and in the form of deductions for lodging, heating, and lighting. If a machine stops working, if part of it breaks down, it is the worker who has to pay to repair it. The workers are robbed, harassed and oppressed on all sides. There is no improvement for them as long as the law does not protect them.
Even if one disregards the question of the well-being of these oppressed workers, the question of their present situation must interest the whole country. The neighborhoods they inhabit, as well as the way they live in New York, are quite capable of producing and spreading contagious diseases. This is not a distant eventuality, but a matter of paramount importance that requires immediate consideration. The only remedy can be that the manufacture of products for the market in these pest holes is absolutely prohibited”.
So says an official report.
This description of labour relations in a single branch of industry, borrowed from a source which is not suspected of partisanship, enables us to draw inferences about the conditions in the other industries.
—71— Now which are the powers that have declared war on such conditions, that is, which are the labour organizations in the United States?
To my knowledge, the most important organization, and the one which gives most hope for the future, is the “American Federation of Labour”, created by the trade unions whose spirit and tendency are reminiscent of the old English trades unions. With regard to the workers’ movement, it is still fighting on the basis of the wage system, that is, it demands a reduction in working hours and an increase in wages. This federation has taken the initiative in a movement that has recently restarted in favour of the eight-hour normal working day . I have no doubt that very intelligent leaders of this organization have already seen the inadequacy of the goals we have just mentioned. But they consider it premature to go any further in the direction of socialism. Pressure in this direction will be exerted from below and, after dissenting elements have been removed, the “Federation of Labour” will shortly proclaim the class struggle at the same time as the conscious proletariat of the old world.
The second major organization is “The Knights of Labor”. This group of workers, founded by very well-meaning and relatively capable men, did not justify the hopes which the Order initially awakened in large numbers of workers, even socialists. The organization of the “Knights of Labor” has been declining rapidly since last year, and the number of its supporters has fallen by half. This decline is mainly explained by the incompetence and dishonesty of the leaders. Mr. Powderly, the “Grand Master”, receives 5000 dollars a year — about 25,000 francs — from the pockets of the members of the order, as a regular salary; in addition, the Order covers the truly colossal “extraordinary expenses” of the chief, who is surrounded by a true hierarchy of officials who support him. Mr. Powderly has taken a wrong turn — in the beginning he referred to himself as a member of the Socialist workers‘ party. Such a person offers no guarantee for the future; such elements must be completely removed, and workers everywhere, like the German socialists in America, regard it as their duty to purify the proletarian movement of all dubious and dishonest elements, to bring about an education of the masses, and to spread better knowledge of the ultimate goals of the workers’ movement. This is not an easy task. It takes great sacrifices of time and money. German workers and their organizations are always ready to help with strikes and lockouts. On these occasions, Irishmen and Americans seek out their German comrades, for whom they often display a kind of disdain. But this in no way prevents us from doing our duty. Although slow progress has made some of us pessimists, new fighters keep appearing on the battlefield.
In view of the limited time I have at my disposal, I do not want to say anything about the effectiveness of the Germans in the purely socialist organizations, that is, in the Socialist Labor Party. In general we are at the point where it is a question of blowing a breach in the enemy fortress, and we shall not lay down our weapons before the enemy lies passed out on the ground. ( Applause).
Citizen Ferroul, French deputy, gives a brief overview of the prevailing parliamentarianism which, according to him, inevitably amounts to deceiving the masses. Before the elections —72— the gentlemen candidates give the appearance of being socialists, they claim to be full of concern for the workers. But, once elected, they care little about the interests of proletarians. Only towards the end of a legislative period, shortly before they once again present themselves to their voters, do they hurry to vote for laws with a socialist aspect, certain that they will be rejected by the Senate. This is how it went, for example, with the law on accidents, mine inspectors, etc.
The ex-deputies who want to become deputies once again make use of these laws in order to lure the voting masses with lying phrases about their alleged friendliness towards the workers; in short, they do not shrink from the crudest manoeuvres. One such electoral manoeuvre is, for example, the revision of the constitution.
As long as it is an opportunist or Radical bourgeois revision, the change it is supposed to bring about will only be an apparent one. The deputies look after the affairs of the bourgeoisie excellently, because they are the representatives of the bourgeoisie and not of the people. But there is an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the people and those of the bourgeoisie.
Those same men who take care of the affairs of the latter can never serve the mass of the people. If workers want their interests to be effectively represented, they must take them into their own hands. They will not triumph if they rely on others, but only, when they count on their own strength. (Lively, repeated cries of ‘bravo’.)
Citizen Christensen takes the floor with a report on the workers’ movement in Denmark. The Danish movement is still young, because the bourgeoisie did not come to power until after 1849, the year in which a free constitution similar to the French one of 1789 was attained.
The revolution in Paris in 1871 gave a tremendous impetus to the workers’ movement in Denmark. Many workers belonged to the International until the state passed a law against this association.
On May 5, 1871, the workers of Copenhagen were summoned to a large gathering on the north field, near the city. This gathering was banned by the police and the instigators Louis Pio, Brix and Gelef were arrested and sentenced to several years of hard labour. The brutality of the authorities drove the workers to a stronger organization, and Pio, released from prison, was appointed editor-in-chief of the official organ of the Danish workers’ party, the "Social Democrat", which at that time had a circulation of 10,000 copies. In 1876 Pio was put up as a worker candidate for the Chamber of Deputies, but, as the reaction was still very strong, he received only 1,100 votes against the 3,000 given to his opponent. In 1877 Pio and Gelef emigrated to America and it was believed that they had been paid by the police to facilitate the destruction of the workers' organizations. But this purpose was not achieved — on the contrary, the organizations strengthened themselves daily. Harald Brix stayed in Denmark until his death and fought vigorously for the workers’ cause. He founded a party (so-called “Haralds”) and a journal with a more revolutionary tendency, but this party perished with the death of its founder. Although there were now many disputes over personal issues, the moderate and revolutionary parties merged after the death of Brix.
—73— The socialist workers’ party in Denmark was until then composed of trade unions and professional associations, its program was both political and economic at the same time. In 1878 the Social Democratic Federation was founded, the purpose of which was the discussion of political and social questions. After the Copenhagen congress in 1880 it was decided that the two organizations — that is, the trade unions and professional associations on the one hand and the social-democratic federation on the other hand — should proceed together on the path of political and social demands. From 1880 until today the workers‘ movement has made great strides. The party's journal, “the Social Democrat”, has reached 22,000 subscribers under the editorship of citizen Wiinblad .
The party is convinced that the trade union organizations are a powerful aid in the struggle against capital.
For the moment there are 70 united unions and professional associations, with a total of 20,000 members. The separate workers’ parties take a very active part in the elections. In the 1884 election campaign, the Socialists allied with the Liberals to overthrow the Estrup ministry. The result of this was the election of two socialist candidates Halm and Hördum. But this victory did not change the unfortunate position of the workers.
The government scoffs at the bills introduced by the workers’ deputies, and the ministry has responded to them with provisional decrees. As a result, it is impossible to obtain reforms to assist the workers in the task of their future liberation.
In the elections of 1887, Citizen Hördum was not re-elected and Citizen Halm only won with a small majority. This lack of success is due to an electoral law which permits the bourgeois to monitor the voting of the workers and which determines that any elector who might have received support from public funds should lose the right to vote. Danish citizens only have the right to vote at the age of 30. The socialist candidates received the large number of 8,000 votes in Copenhagen.
At this moment the professional associations and unions are embroiled in a fierce struggle against capitalism. The master carpenters and the furniture manufacturers have thrown more than 3000 workers onto the street because they did not want to submit to capitalist tyranny. The Danish capitalists are using all means to destroy the workers’ organizations, and Minister Estrup has completely robbed the people of their political rights; for 10 years he ruled the country with provisional decrees. The Danish movement received its initial impetus from the French; in its development it follows in the path of the German socialists.
The Danish socialists have had great confidence in the bourgeois Liberal party, however, since they have always been betrayed, this illusion is beginning to fade and they are now seeking to constitute themselves as a pure class party.
The organization of the workers is in a good state everywhere in Denmark, especially in Jutland, where socialist journals have been established in four large towns, just as there are socialist groups in almost every small town.
At the beginning of this year a radical socialist paper was founded in Copenhagen with the aim of spreading socialist theories, giving the workers‘ movement a strictly socialist character and developing the Danish proletariat into a class party.
—74— The Danish government with “little Bismarck” Estrup at the helm has tried to deceive the workers with legislative measures, but the workers, who are almost strangled by capitalism, no longer have confidence in their effectiveness. They know very well that there is no legislation that benefits the worker, but only a change of scenery for the same system.
Finally, Citizen Christensen affirmed that there are not a few supporters of the workers’ party who have unclear views and who put their hopes in palliative measures. “But there are different views in the workers’ movement of Denmark about the tactics to be followed, as is also the case in other countries." (Bravo!)
With the report of the Danish delegate, the series of general reports is concluded, and the Congress proceeds to hear the special reports.
Citizen Diekmann, delegate of the miners of Westphalia, is greeted with lively applause and gives a description of the situation of his workmates.
In view of the limited amount of time that the congress can devote to each individual speaker, it is not possible for him to recount the origin and development of the strike of the Rhineland-Westphalia miners. In contradiction with the police reports, it was not social democracy that brought about this strike, rather the deepest misery has driven the miners to stop working. Eventually the miners came to be fully aware of their situation; they understood that they could not count on anyone but themselves, and so the overwhelming majority were against a delegation of Messrs. Bunte, Schröder, and Siegel as a deputation to the Kaiser. The ultramontanes had persuaded the miners to go directly to the emperor, although all the meetings of the strikers declared themselves against such a delegation, in that the people said to each other: “Our quarrel is only with our employers, the coal barons; the emperor cannot do anything here ”. In the meantime, the three named above let themselves be influenced by the main editor of the ultramontane newspaper and the management of the coal mine "Karlsglück" in Dorstfeld and drove to Berlin without being elected by the strikers. This so-called miners delegation caused the strike to fail. During the three “delegates” stay in Berlin, the newspapers published false and contradictory reports which created a real confusion among the strikers, so that they no longer knew who to follow. The strike broke down — but the miners are no longer the same as they used to be. The number of those dissatisfied has risen considerably and they have turned more and more to socialism, to which the miners had previously reacted negatively, trailing behind the chaplains and keeping away from the workers‘ movement for fear of the socialist law. Now that they have fully tasted the harshness of this law, simply because they are workers, the miners have been brought into the conscious workers‘ movement. Above all, they understand the need to be tightly organized in a union and to avoid all influence from the clergy. The new organization, whose statutes have already been drafted, will be called the “Association for the protection and promotion of the interests of miners in Rheiland-Westphalen“. Once these miners have achieved clarity about their real interests, they will escape the fateful power of the priests and the power of capital by which they are oppressed. The clergy and the police compete against each other to put a spoke in the wheels of this organization of the —75— miners. It is made almost impossible for them to call meetings; the police forbid them from the outset on the basis of the socialist law. Furthermore, the miners do not have any of the reading that is so necessary for their enlightenment, since only national liberal and ultramontane newspapers are available to them. All socialist papers and workers‘ newspapers are forbidden to them, and it is only with the greatest danger and effort that such papers can be distributed among them. In order to change this state of affairs, if possible, for the better, a workers‘ newspaper was founded, the “Westphälische Arbeiterzeitung”, which comes out in Dortmund and already has 4,000 subscribers. It tries to spread the word, and with good results. The miners of Westphalia and the Rhine Province are organizing more and more tightly to lead the fight against priesthood and capital. They have finally joined the conscious proletariat fighting for its emancipation, and they will not tire for a moment in carrying out the difficult task which they have set themselves. (Lively applause.)
Citizen Lecomte, representative of the French glassworks workers, made his report in writing and waived the floor in favour of citizen Horn, the delegate of the German glassworkers. Lecomte declares himself completely in agreement with his comrade's report, since he has seen from a conversation with him that the situation of glass workers in Germany is exactly the same as in France. As a result, he also agrees to the demands that Citizen Horn will formulate.
Citizen Horn explains the situation of the German glass workers as follows:
There are around 350 businesses in the glass industry in Germany with around 50,000 workers. The lack of any organization results in a really deplorable economic situation for this army of workers. If the workers in this trade are nonetheless represented at the international congress in Paris, it just means that they are tired of the situation they have been placed in and that they are beginning to join the movement for the organization of the proletariat. The organizational efforts of the glass workers are still young and the number of workers represented here does not exceed a few thousand; but the fact that they insisted on having a delegate at this congress is in itself important and noteworthy.
The glass industry is one of the most arduous and grueling that one can imagine. The workers most at risk are the mirror backers, whose situation is superbly depicted by Dr. Bruno Schönlank in his brochure: “The mirror backing factories in Bavaria and their workers”. Likewise, from the platform of the Reichstag, Bebel spoke about the dangers to which the workers in this branch of industry are exposed, and apparently as a result of the pressure which was thus exerted on public opinion, the Bavarian government took legal measures to protect these workers.
According to the degree of danger associated with their work, next come the glass cutters and polishers, the workers in the glass grinding shops, and finally the glassblowers themselves, who are employed in the melting furnaces.
According to carefully checked information compiled by the workers of 32 glass factories, these establishments employ 3,500 workers. The minors of both sexes in this total are 490, the female labour in general 260, of whom 60 are under 16 years of age. The number of young workers under the age of 16 comes to 230.
—76—
| The working hours in these businesses are: | |
|---|---|
| in the mirror-backing trade | 10 to 12 hours |
| in the lighting trade | 12 to 14 hours |
| in the manufacture of concave glasses | 10 to 12 hours |
| in glass-cutting and glass-grinding businesses | 12 to 14 hours |
| in the bead and decoration industries | 16 to 18 hours |
These counts of hours include breakfast and lunch breaks, but those breaks are almost never strictly observed. With few exceptions, there is no Sunday rest, Sunday work lasts 10 hours. The glass workers, including minors, work 70 to 100 hours a week.
The wage statistics show the following picture.
| The median weekly wage is: | |
|---|---|
| for the experienced worker (Master) | 15—25 Marks |
| for the unskilled or day labourer | 9—15 |
| for the experienced female worker | 6—8 |
| for a young worker under 16 years old (entry level) | 5—8 |
These wages are often significantly reduced by fines, and deductions of all kinds are quite common. The fines are between 1 and 10 marks! And if in rare, exceptional cases a worker's wages exceed the tariff we have given above, these exceptions have no effect on the economic well-being of the great masses.
The health-related working conditions of the large glass factories are either downright bad or at least inadequate. Inadequate ventilation, large amounts of dust, smoke, gases, sometimes moisture and sometimes excessive dryness in the various workshops and workrooms, together with unhealthy housing, low wages and long working hours create malignant diseases such as pulmonary consumption etc. These dreadful conditions create a working class of sickly people condemned to an early death, and threaten the very existence of the glass industry if serious improving reforms are not made soon.
The workers demand the following reforms:
The delegates of the French professional association of glass workers of the Seine department and the department of the Seine and Oise declare their solidarity with these demands of the German glass workers. (Cheers.)
The President announces that he has received two motions, the first of which requireis an end to the reports, the second, an end after hearing the report on women's work and the report of captain Dupon on seafarers’ work.
Citizen Frohme requests on the basis of an earlier resolution to also hear the report of citizen Kloß on the work of the carpenters.
—77— Citizen Lentz, delegate of the waiters in cafés (and in lemonade sales outlets) wishes to read out his report. The trade association, by which he is commissioned, attaches great importance to the fact that the sad situation of the members of their profession should be made known to the congress.
After citizen Kloß has declared, with the approval of all delegates, that he will forego the floor in favor of Lentz’s report, the Congress accepts the second proposal, and Captain Dupon, chairman of the federation for the interests of seafarers, describes the situation of his clients.
It is the first time, he explains, that seafarers are represented at an international congress, and he thanks the congress, which made an exception in their favour and gave him the floor.
Far too little is known about the wretched situation and the unbearable employment conditions of workers at sea; their complaints are the most justifiable one can imagine, and this Congress has not yet heard from them. The seafarers are still under the ordenance of minister Colbert, the minister of an absolute king, Louis the Fourteenth, in whose tracks the alleged liberals of the capitalist bourgeoisie of 1889 faithfully follow.
The seaman is entirely given into the hands of exploiters who have usurped shipping; he is included in the general expenses of exploitation, just like coal, rigging, sails, painting, etc., with the sole difference that the expenses for material needs cannot suffer any reductions or cuts, while the living article, called the seaman, is continually saved on, in order to increase the dividends or the scandalously high salaries of the wholesalers of financial exploitation.
For two hundred years the social situation of seafarers has not improved in any way; of course, one must recognize that the revolution of 1848 did abolish punishment by whipping and lashes with the ship’s rope, but we still have the punishments of being bound by stays, shackling with single and double ring, keel-hauling, deprivation of food and drink, and the occasional blows, punches and kicks that are not legal, but tolerated. In order to finally hit this white slave on the point that is closest to his heart, they reduce that little bit of bread for his wife, his children, an old mother or an old father, by lowering his hard-earned wages; — and all in the name of brotherhood![1]
In order to be able to use this hated system of exploitation of people for the enrichment of other people on a permanent basis, an abominable system of administration and representation, the Organization de commissariat gouvernemental, has been maintained, to which the seaman must turn in every matter, and which is of such a nature that the exploiter is judge and plaintiff in one person in every dispute with his unfortunate victims. In a word, the poor devil cannot seek his justice anywhere else than with the government commissars and naval gendarmes, i.e. with the creatures (“hellhounds”) of the capitalist whose slave he is.
Since the capitalist speculators laid their hands on the shipping industry, the exploitation of the crews has grown to a scale unheard-of to this day. The senior officials have only one task to perform: to extract for capital what is to be extracted at the expense of the sailing personnel, by reducing wages and, above all, by reducing the personnel themselves.
—78— In particular, extensive use has been made of this latter measure, for they know from experience that they can force the seaman to do the greatest conceivable amount of work, since there is not the slightest obligation to give him the necessary rest at night, or on Sundays or public holidays.
The first one to complain will always get the answer: “You are not satisfied? The devil take you! There are 50 others on the quay ready to stand in for you!”
Captain Dupon concludes: Citizens, I submit to you the minimum requirements of your brothers in work and in misery!
With what they delegate me to ask, the exploited seafarers will be able to make their existence less dangerous and gradually contribute to the complete liberation of the workers.
Citizen Dupon reads out the demands of the seamen from the merchant ships of the port of Bordeaux, which are:
In accordance with the wishes of the Congress, Captain Dupon reads out further documents concerning the situation and wishes of the seafarers. These are:
1 captain for long voyages, president,
1 machinist (machine master), committee member,
1 captain for short voyages (coastal voyages), committee member,
1 master boatman (Maitre d’équipage) , committee
member,
1 chief stoker, committee member,
1 sailor, committee member,
1 stoker, committee member.
1 captain for long voyages, president,
1 machine master for long journeys, committee member,
1 master for coastal journeys (maitre au cabotage),
committee member,
1 master boatman (maitre d’équipage) , committee
member,
1 chief stoker, committee member,
1 sailor, committee member,
1 stoker, committee member,
Citizen Tressaud seconds these demands of the seafarers and the Congress votes by acclamation that the Dupon report as well as the documents attached to it should be published in the form of a brochure and distributed in all ports of the various nations. (Applause.)
In the name of the trade association of restaurateurs and lemonade sellers (waiters), citizen Lentz brings to the attention of Congress and the whole world the extent of the harms his corporation can rightly complain about. In examining the situation of the waiters, one has to admit that in Paris the white slave trade is in full bloom. The following facts will prove that this is not an exaggeration and that the position of the waiters can be compared to Negro slavery.
The waiter has the most arduous, grueling and difficult job. He “does” his eighteen hours a day, is exposed to a range of humiliations on the part of the varying temperaments with which he has to deal every day, and still more excessive demands on the part of his employers. Not only is he not paid for his efforts, but he is also obliged to make more or less direct contributions — to give up part of his takings. Our gentlemen principals, who for their part were mostly assistants themselves at a time when the generosity of the public was greater, believe that those exceptions to the rule, copious tips, earn the waiters considerable sums of money.
—80— But nowadays the generosity of the public has long since decreased significantly and is becoming less every day; hence the complaints about a situation that in a word can be called unbearable. If this was all limited to the lack of generosity on the part of the customers, it would not be a great misfortune — after all, one of the demands of our corporation is: Abolition of tips!
Under the pretext of broken crockery, of assistant workers of any kind, that is, of expenses that should undoubtedly be assigned to the proprietor, since he gets an advantage from them — every waiter sees 2-6 Frs vanish from his daily income.
The little the waiters earn is also reduced by the employment agencies. They often pay 120-150 Frs. for a sure position, and this is often so bad that they have to resign to avoid being rapidly dismissed. Often the proprietor is actually the accomplice of the agency owner and arranges it in such a way that his staff have to visit the agency as often as possible!
All demands made by those affected to the competent authorities for the abolition of the employment agency have so far had no effect. It must give a certain satisfaction that this speculation exists only in France and Belgium;[2] and there is also the fact that in the latter country placement agencies are not exploited by locals, but rather by French people, who have mostly lost their civil rights in France.
The deplorable situation of the waiters is enough to explain the excitement and agitation of the last year aimed at abolishing the employment or certification agency and the establishment of work certifications by the trade associations. A trade association of restaurateurs and lemonade sellers has existed since 1886, comprising about 4,500 of the 80,000 waiters employed in Paris. The association demands a normal working day, wage increases, and abolition of the job certification bureau.
It is to be hoped that the delegates present here will contribute to the emancipation of this long-ignored profession.
The demand for a fixed wage for hours worked is truly not unreasonable and the abolition of the certification agency is self-evident, since it is the only means of putting the future of the professions generally active in the food industry on a secure footing.
Citizen Lentz also reads a report that the corporations of the food industry have submitted to the Chamber of Deputies in response to the rejection of the abolition of the certification agencies proposed by the Chamber‘s Commission. The report states that the abolition of the said bodies is not, as has been alleged, an encroachment upon the freedom of the employment contract, and that in no way should compensation be given to the current owners of agencies consecutive on their abuse of an acquired right; and from the picture of the position of the waiters that it contains, it reaches the same conclusions that Citizen Lentz has just presented. (Applause.) —
Citizen Zetkin, representing the female workers of Berlin, takes the floor on the question of female labour, to lively applause. She declares that she does not want to report on the situation of —81— female workers, as this is the same as that of male workers. But with the agreement of her sponsors, she wishes to shed light on the question of female labour from the point of view of principle. Since lack of clarity rules on this question, it is absolutely necessary for an international workers’ congress to speak out loud and clear on this subject by dealing with the question of principle.
It is — explains the speaker — not to be marvelled at, that the reactionary elements have a reactionary conception of female labour. But it is surprising in the extreme that even in the socialist camp one encounters an erroneous view which demands the abolition of female labour. The question of women’s emancipation, i.e. in the last instance the question of female labour, is an economic one, and one rightly expects a higher degree of understanding of economic problems from the socialists than that which is evidenced in that particular demand.
Socialists must know that with contemporary economic developments, female labour is a necessity; that the natural tendency of female labour either leads to a diminution of the hours of labour which each individual must devote to society, or to an increase in the wealth of society; that it is not female labour itself which, through competition with male labour power, depresses wages, but the capitalist's exploitation of the female labour which he appropriates.
Socialists must above all know that social slavery or freedom is based on economic dependence or independence. Those who have written on their banner the liberation of all “that bears a human face”[a] must not condemn a whole half of the human race to political and social slavery through economic dependence. Just as the worker is subjugated by the capitalist, so is the woman by the man; and she will remain subjugated as long as she is not economically independent. The indispensable condition for women’s economic independence is work. If one wants to make women into free human beings, into equal members of society like men, one need neither abolish nor limit women’s work, except in certain, very isolated exceptional cases.
Women workers who strive for social equality have no expectations of emancipation by the women's movement of the bourgeoisie, which supposedly fights for women’s rights. This edifice is built on sand and has no real foundation. Women workers are absolutely convinced that the question of women’s emancipation is not an isolated question, existing for itself, but rather a part of the great social question. They are absolutely convinced of the fact that this question will not be resolved in contemporary society now or evermore, but only after a thorough transformation of society.
The question of women’s emancipation question is a child of modern times, and the machine gave birth to it. In the Renaissance, women were intellectually and socially equal to men, but it never occurred to anyone to raise the question of their emancipation, and the emancipation of women means a complete change in their social position from the ground up, a revolution in their role in economic life. The old form of production with its imperfect means of labour tied the woman to the family and limited her sphere of activity to the interior of her house. In the bosom of the family, a woman was an extraordinarily productive worker. She produced almost all of the family's everyday items. With the state of production and trade of yesteryear, it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to produce these articles outside the family. As long as these older —82— relations of production were in force, woman was economically productive. With the transformation of the relations of production, which no longer allowed women any productive activity, woman became a consumer. This about turn contributed greatly to the reduction of marriages.
Machine production has killed the economic activity of women in the family. Big industry produces all articles cheaper, faster and in greater volume than was possible with individual industry, which only worked with the imperfect tools of a dwarfish production. The woman often had to pay more dearly for the raw material, which she bought in small quantities, than for the finished product of large-scale mechanical industry. In addition to the purchase price (of the raw material), she also had to give her own time and work. As a result, productive activity within the family became economic nonsense, a waste of time and energy. Although the woman producing in the bosom of the family may be of use to single individuals, this kind of activity is none the less a loss to society.
That is the reason why the good housekeeper from the good old days has almost completely disappeared. Large-scale industry has made the production of goods in the home and for the family useless; it has removed the grounds for the activity of women in the home. At the same time, it also has created the grounds for the activity of women in society. Mechanical production, which can dispense with muscular strength and skilled labour, made it possible to employ women in a large number of fields. Woman entered industry wishing to increase the family income. Female labour in industry became a necessity in relation to the development of modern industry. And every improvement in modern times resulted in male labour becaming superfluous, thousands of workers were thrown on the streets, a reserve army of the poor was created and wages continually fell ever lower.
Formerly the man’s earnings, while the woman was simultaneously productive at home, had been enough to secure his family’s existence; now it is scarcely enough to get the unmarried worker through. The married worker must necessarily count on his wife’s paid work.
By this development woman was freed from economic dependence on man. The woman active in industry, who could not possibly be exclusively in the family, as a mere economic appendage of the man — she learned self sufficiency as an economic force who is independent of men. But if woman is no longer economically dependent on man, then there is no reasonable ground for her social dependence on him. At the same time this economic independence does not at the moment benefit the woman herself, but the capitalist. Through his monopoly of the means of production, the capitalist has seized the new economic factor and let it operate for his exclusive advantage. The woman freed from her economic dependence on her husband has been subjected to the economic rule of the capitalist; from a slave of her husband she became that of the employer: she had only changed masters. All the same she gained by this change; she is no longer economically inferior in relation to the husband and subordinate to him, but his equal. The capitalist, however, is not content with exploiting the woman himself, he makes her still more useful in that he exploits male workers even more thoroughly with her aid.
From the outset, female labour was cheaper than mens’. The man‘s wages were originally calculated to cover the living expenses —83— of a whole family; from the start, woman‘s wages represented only the cost of maintaining a single person, and even this only in part, because it was expected that the woman would also work at home as well as her work in the factory. Furthermore, the products made by the woman at home with primitive work tools, compared with the products of large-scale industry, corresponded to only a small amount of average social labour. One was led, therefore, to infer that women have less ability to work, and this consideration allowed the woman to receive less pay for her labour-power. In addition to these reasons for low pay, there was the fact that, on the whole, women have fewer needs than men.
But what made female labour-power particularly valuable to the capitalist was not only the low price, but also the greater subservience of women. The capitalist speculated on both of these factors: to pay the female worker as badly as possible, and to drive down the wages of men as much as possible through this competition. In the same way he made use of child labour to lower women‘s wages; and the work of machines to reduce those of human labour-power in general. The capitalist system alone is the reason that female labour has results that are precisely opposite to its natural tendency; that it leads to a longer working day rather than an essentially shorter one; that it does not signify an increase in the wealth of society, i.e. a greater prosperity of each individual member of society, but only an increase in the profit of a handful of capitalists and at the same time an ever greater mass impoverishment. The disastrous consequences of female labour, which are so painfully felt today, will only disappear with the capitalist system of production.
In order not to succumb to competition, the capitalist must endeavor to make the difference between the purchase price (price of production) and the sale price of his commodities as large as possible; so he seeks to produce as cheaply as possible and to sell as dearly as possible. The capitalist therefore has every interest in prolonging the working day indefinitely and in fobbing off labour with as ridiculously low wages as possible. This endeavour is in direct opposition to the interests of women workers, as well as those of men. So there is no real contradiction between the interests of male workers and female workers; but there is indeed an irreconcilable opposition between the interests of capital and those of labour.
Economic reasons speak against calling for a ban on female labour. The current economic situation is such that neither the capitalist nor the husband can do without female labour. The capitalist has to maintain it in order to remain competitive, and the husband has to count on it if he wants to start a family. If we ourselves wanted to make the case for female labour to be eliminated by legislative means, this would not improve men‘s wages. The capitalist would very soon cover the shortage of cheap female labour-power by making more extensive use of perfected machines - and in a short time everything would be back as before!
After great stoppages of work, the outcome of which was favourable for the workers, it has been seen that the capitalists, with the help of perfected machines, have eliminated the workers‘ successes and have seized the same opportunities for exploitation that they had before.
—84— If one calls for the prohibition or restriction of women's labour because of the competition that arises from it, then it is just as logical to call for the abolition of machines and the restoration of mediæval guild law, which fixes the number of workers to be employed in every commercial enterprise.
Apart from the economic reasons, there are above all reasons of principle which speak against a ban on female labour. Precisely on the basis of the principled side of the question, women must be careful to protest with all their might against any attempt of this kind; they must oppose it with the most vigorous and at the same time justified resistance, because they know that their social and political equality with men depends solely on their economic independence, which enables them to work outside the family in society.
From the standpoint of principle, we women protest strongly against the restriction of female labour. Since we do not at all want to separate our cause from the workers’ cause in general, we shall therefore not formulate any separate demands; we demand no other protection than that which labour in general demands against capital.
We leave only one exception in favour of pregnant women, whose condition requires special protective measures in the interests of the woman herself and her offspring. We do not recognize any special women‘s issue – we do not recognize any ‘female worker’s question’! We do not expect our full emancipation either from the admission of women to what are called the ‘liberal professions’, nor from the same education as men — although the demand for these two rights is only natural and just! — nor from the granting of political rights. The countries in which an alleged universal, free, and indirect suffrage exists show us how small its real value is. The right to vote without economic freedom is nothing more and nothing less than a promissory note that has been signed but has no security. If social emancipation depended on political rights, no social question would exist in countries with universal suffrage. The emancipation of women like that of the whole human race will be exclusively the result of the emancipation of labour from capital . It is only in a socialist society that women, like workers, will acquire full rights.
In view of these facts, women who are serious about their desire for liberation have no choice but to join the Socialist workers‘ party, the only one which strives for the emancipation of the workers.
Without the help of men, and often even against the will of men, women have gathered under the socialist banner; one must even admit that in certain cases they have been irresistibly driven there even against their own intention, simply by a clear understanding of the economic situation.
But they stand under that banner now, and they will remain under it! They will fight under it for their “emancipation”, for their recognition as human beings with equal rights.
In going hand in hand with the Socialist workers’ party, they are ready to share in all the efforts and sacrifices of the struggle, but they are also determined, with complete justification, to claim all their due rights after the victory. With regard to sacrifices and duties, as well as rights, they want to be neither more nor less than comrades-in-arms who have been accepted into the ranks of the fighters on equal terms.
—85— Lively applause, which repeats after Citizeness Aveling has translated these propositions into English and French.
After the series of special reports, which the Congress had resolved to accept, has been dealt with, a debate ensues as to whether the anarchists or at least one of them should be allowed to speak for more than 15 minutes (the Lafargue motion) so that they cannot complain about intolerance being shown to the propounding of their theories.
Many delegates point out that anarchist theories are more than well known, and that the Congress would give evidence of sufficient tolerance if it allowed a single anarchist speaker to speak for more than fifteen minutes.
“Compagnon” (comrade) Montant explains the origin and meaning of the word “anarchy”; he gives a long-winded exposition of the “absolute freedom” of the anarchists, which alone is capable of transforming society for the better.
These arguments meet with approval only from a few French and English delegates; the overwhelming majority loudly express their disapproval and interrupt the speaker with ironic interjections.
Citizen Franchet, delegate of the cabinet makers from Faubourg St. Antoine, complains that the workers of Paris no longer have revolutionary blood in their veins. Do they want to be fooled again by a completely rotten and thoroughly decayed parliamentarism? He recommends abstention from voting and advises against the demand for labour legislation, which in his opinion is incapable of dealing with their sad situation.
The Belgian delegates request an end to the sitting; Citizen Vaillant then suggests on behalf of the Bureau that the Congress tomorrow sits continually until its tasks have been completed.
This proposal is accepted after it has been determined that the next day’s agenda should only include the discussion of the various items that were included in the work program from the outset, in particular the votes on the resolutions to be adopted.
The session ended at 3 p.m.
1. As is well known, the motto of the republic is: freedom, equality, fraternity!
2. Unfortunately in other countries too.
a. Quoted from Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Über die Würde des Menschen (1794). Also quoted by Friedrich Ebert at the start of the November revolution, 1919: 'So wollen wir wahr machen, was Fichte der deutschen Nation als ihre Bestimmung gegeben hat: “Wir wollen errichten ein Reich des Rechtes und der Wahrhaftigkeit, gegründet auf Gleichheit alles dessen, was Menschenantlitz trägt.”’ (We want to make true what Fichte gave the German nation as its destiny: “We want to establish a kingdom of justice and truthfulness, based on the equality of all that bears a human face”)