Second International | The 1889 Congresses | Proceedings of First Congress (Possibilist)
After its National Committee had overcome countless difficulties, in the month of July, 1889 the French workers' Party[2] finally succeeded in organizing the international Paris Congress, the holding of which had been decided in London the previous year.[3]
The agenda was conceived as follows:
1. International labour legislation. — Legal regulation of the working day. — Work by day, at night, on public holidays, by adults, by women and by children. — Oversight of workshops in large and small industries, as well as domestic industry. Ways and means to achieve these demands;
2. The most practical means to use to establish continuing relations between workers' organizations of all countries, without thereby reducing their autonomy;
3. Employers' combinations and intervention by the public authorities;
4. Setting of the date and location for the next Congress. — Rules to be adopted for its convocation, its organization and the holding of its sessions.
—4—
On July 15, at half past one, the first session of the Congress took place in the hall of the Union for Trade and Industry, 10, rue de Lancry.
The hall — large, very well decorated, red flags flying overhead on all sides — was packed with a mass of delegates and a public so numerous they could barely find seats.
The National Committee[4] sat on the vast stage; on each side a bust of the Republic, wearing a red Phrygian cap.
The Committee was made up of the following citizens:
A. Lavy, teacher, Paris municipal councillor, secretary of the National Committee for France[5];
E. André-Gély, white collar worker, member of the Committee on Insanitary Housing, secretary of the Bulletin de la Bourse du Travail, secretary of the National Committee for overseas;
E. Picau, piano worker, secretary of the Central Union Federation, secretary for meetings of the National Committee;
Avey, white collar worker, deputy secretary of the National Committee for France;
Ribanier, tinsmith, secretary-general of the Bourse du Travail, deputy secretary of the National Committee for overseas;
Delacour, bookbinder, treasurer of the National Committee;
J. Allemane, typographer;[6]
Ch. André, engineering worker;
Berthaut, piano worker, industrial dispute resolution volunteer;[7]
P. Brousse, doctor of medicine, Paris municipal councillor;[8]
Couturat, sheet metal worker;—5—
Dejeante, hat-maker;
Dumay, engineering worker, Paris municipal councilor;
Heppenheimer, piano worker;
J. Joffrin, engineering worker, vice-president of the Paris municipal council;[9]
S. Paulard, white collar worker, Paris municipal councilor;
Prudent Dervillers, tailor, editor for the Prolétariat;[10]
J. Vaidy, white collar worker, administrator of the Sociale and of the Prolétariat.
As in preceding Congresses, Citizen Smith Headingley lends his intelligent and valuable aid for the translation of speeches delivered at the Congress.[11]
On behalf of the National Committee, Citizen Lavy declares the Congress open and reads out the following report:[12]
CITIZENS,
Faithful to the mandate given to us by the two international congresses of Paris and London, we have organized the third international socialist workers' congress.
We would have wished to see workers' delegates and socialists from the whole world in this hall, we would have wished that the resolution which will emerge from this great proletarian event were made so powerful by our union that it would finally teach universal capitalism that not only the hands, but also the brain and the will of the workers have to be reckoned with.
What a proud dream! To bring together delegates of all proletarians, of all the workers of the world, in fraternity; to unite them in this Paris which a hundred years ago proclaimed the Rights of Man, and to have them solemnly declare that they will make no truce, take no rest before they have —6— won the Rights of Labour, before they have made justice and equality the rule for all human relations!
This dream, which haunted our spirits and whose realization made us proud even before the event, we, workers and socialists of this country, have been pained to see vanish just as a stormy wind disperses a cloud made golden by the rays of the sun.
We could not, of course, expect the division now exposed to the light of day.
We have been loyal and fraternal to all. We could not imagine that anyone would think of snatching the mandate given to us by two International Congresses from our hands.
At the London Congress, for the benefit of the German Socialists, we had energetically affirmed international socialist solidarity, and, at the German club, we had declared that not one of our foreign comrades could ever complain that we had closed the doors of this Congress to him due to an inquisitorial formality.
However, we had only just returned from London when two letters, dated November 26 and December 4, gave us a forewarning of difficulties to come. The well-known Dutch socialist, Domela Nieuwenhuis, told us about an International Congress that the German Socialists wanted to organize in Switzerland.
To these letters we replied that two International Congresses had made a decision, that our comrades in Germany could not place their will alone above that of those two Congresses and that, moreover, our fraternal regard in their respect made us hope that they would abandon their project, which would be fatal to the cause of labour.
There was no longer any question of the Swiss Congress. But this danger only disappeared to be replaced by another.
On January 10th, we received the following letter dated the 8th from Borsdorf:
—7—
The German Democratic Socialist parliamentarians have resolved to take part in the International Workers' Congress which, in accordance with the resolutions of the Workers' Congress of Bordeaux and of the International Congress of London, must be held in Paris during the current year. To make the necessary preparations, we have thought it essential to hold a preparatory conference.
With our Swiss, Belgian and Dutch friends, we agreed to hold the preparatory conference in Nancy, on January 18th.
We have just invited our friends the French Marxists and Blanquists, and we invite you to send one or more delegates, so that unity of action can be assured in advance.
Signed: LIEBKNECHT.
What did such a way of acting mean?
People abroad were busy with the International Congress, and we who had been charged with organizing it were the last to be warned, even after "the French Marxists and Guesdists"; we were not told anything about the nature of the talks to be committed to, and we were taken by the throat while inviting us, eight days in advance and by the briefest of letters, to a conference of which we did not know the aim or the agenda.
In addition, this made the holding of the International Congress dependent on the decision of a national Congress in Bordeaux; which constituted, in our opinion, a strange claim. When two International Congresses have decided on a universal call to assembly, can it be the right of one fraction of the labour movement of a single country to oppose its own call to that of several nations which have been properly consulted?
Finally, we were told that it was necessary to "ensure unity of action in advance". What was behind those words? If there was an —8— intention to create a majority before the Congress and from the outside, to impose a direction on it, we were determined to oppose it.
For these various reasons, our National Committee refused to be represented in Nancy.
Without halting at that point, we continued our task and, on February 16th, our first call appeared in the newspaper Le Prolétariat.
This announced that the Congress would be held in the second half of July, determined the requirements for admission, indicated that the verification of mandates and votes would be by nationality, put on the agenda the two questions proposed by the Congress of London and warned that additional resolutions must be tabled at the start of the Congress.
It further advised all groups of workers and socialists that it was up to them to make additions to this agenda and that, together with their details, the final agenda would be fixed on May 31 and communicated to all.
In the meantime, we learned that the Nancy conference had not taken place but that it would be held in The Hague on February 28.
Summoned once again, we again refused to comply with the call sent to us: firstly, because we knew that not all nations had been invited; secondly, because there was no wish to inform us clearly what the purpose of the conference was, and because there was a refusal to recognize in advance our right to organize the Congress.
The conference took place. It drew up a note that Citizen Volders, a member of the National Committee of the Belgian Workers' Party, was charged with bringing to us.
In the first days of March, the National Committee received Citizen Volders.
Here is the note given to us in the name of the Hague Conference:
—9—
The undersigned invite the Federation of Socialist Workers of France, in virtue of the mandate it received from the 1888 London Congress, to convene the International Congress of Paris in agreement with the workers' organizations and socialists of France and other countries.
The invitation, signed by all the representatives of workers' and socialist organizations, must be brought as soon as possible to the awareness of the working and socialist public of Europe and America.
The invitation will state:
1. That the International Congress of Paris will be held from the 14th to the 21st of July, 1889;
2. That it will be made open to workers and socialists from the various countries, by enabling them to comply with the political conditions they are subject to;
3. That Congress will be sovereign for verification of mandates and determining the agenda.
The items on the provisional agenda are as follows:
A. International labour legislation. Legal regulation of the working day. Work by day, at night, on public holidays, by adults, by women and by children;
B. Oversight of workshops in large and small industries, as well as domestic industry;
C. Ways and means to achieve these demands.
The Hague, February 28, 1889. The delegates:
Germany:
A. BEBEL, W. LIEBKNECHT.
Swiss:
REICHEL, VHERRERBEER. [sic]
Holland:
DOMELA NIEUWENHUIS.
Belgium:
E. ANSEELE, JEAN VOLDERS.
France:
PAUL LAFARGUE.
House of the People, Place de Bavière.
—10— Further exchanges took place, from which it became clear to us that it was certain that a Congress would be organized outside and in violation of the resolutions of the International Congresses in Paris and London.
Moreover, this Congress had already been announced by the Blanquist fraction of the French socialists.
The National Committee met on March 20, and decided to send the following reply to the note from the Hague Conference:
Paris, March 22.
Citizen Volders,
I made a mistake in indicating to you March 18 as the date of the session of our National Committee; it did not meet until the 20th. Here are the resolutions that it made:
It declared, firstly, that its mandate to organize the International Congress of 1889, in Paris, was above all dispute, the decisions of International congresses of Paris and London being binding for all. If this were not so, twenty so-called international congresses could be organized simultaneously around the world with just as much right and falsely bearing this title, since they would not result from any international will.
It would be the most complete anarchy in the place of of a union arising from a free agreement, from voluntary submission to the decisions of the series of international congresses succeeding each other to complete and perfect the work of the international organization of workers and socialists.
The Committee reiterated its reservations on the subject of the Hague Conference, reservations that had been presented by earlier letters to the conference, addressed to citizens Liebknecht, Anseele and Nieuwenhuis, and to the Committee of the Belgian Workers' Party. These reservations were, as you know:
—11—
1. That the representatives of all nationalities were not summoned to The Hague, which made this meeting improper;
2. That the purpose of the conference was not clearly stated, despite our persistent and repeated complaints;
3 That the conveners of the conference refused to recognize from the outset our right to organize the Congress, so that from then on we could believe them disposed to deny it by virtue of the answers that were given to us, and that consequently it was not permissible for us to be associated with a violation of the resolutions of the Congresses of Paris and London.
These reservations having been made to clearly establish our position, the National Committee wished to give once again a proof of its conciliatory mood and to demonstrate its strong desire not to lend itself to anything that could hinder the international understanding of workers and socialists. It has resolved, having asserted its rights, to make all concessions compatible with its mandate, its own dignity and the good order and sincerity of the Congress.
You ask us that the appeals for participation in the Congress be signed by all the representatives of workers' and socialist organizations.
That seemed impossible to us, taking it in its absolute sense. In Paris alone the following workers' organizations exist: Blanquists, Guesdists, Barberettisties or Ministerials,[13] positivists, anarchists and finally the Chambres Syndicales[14] which, while adhering, for example, to the Bourse du Travail, are not attached to any political or economic grouping. If the National Committee must be joined by representatives of all these tendencies, it is a real workers' parliament that you are asking to be created, a Parliament which will discuss anything but the preparation of the Congress and which will only be ready in 1890, a year too late. Of course, these citizens cannot give us their signature without being part of the Organizing Committee.
—12— Will you tell us that we could filter them? That would be a task we must refuse. We can act alone, having a mandate for that; but we do not consent to act outside our mandate, involving the representatives of some such groups and rejecting the support of representatives of others. It would be to take sides and to do a bad job of preparing a Congress whose doors must be open to all.
Be that as it may, our Committee wishes to give you every satisfaction possible on this point. The Parisian Chambres Syndicales have met in the Bourse du Travail. They have decided to take part in the Congress. We will ask them, if you wish, to provide two or three members who can join us. You will note that these Chambres Syndicales have very divergent opinions.
You want the Congress date to be set for July 14-21. In a circular, dated February 15, we announced that it would take place in the second half of July. So we agree. It of course remains, however, to take into account the opinions of other nationalities.
You want the Congress to be open "to workers and socialists from the various countries, by enabling them to comply with the political conditions they are subject to". We wrote on February 15 that there would be admission for groups, circles and Chambres Syndicales which have the aim of defending the interests of the workers and their emancipation, and which can prove their existence in 1888. Where political freedom reigns, we demand that groups provide full proof their existence. Where, on the contrary, as in Germany, organization can only be secret, we defer to the good faith of the delegates and those who mandated them.
We have repeated and confirmed this often in London and in our letters to citizens Liebknecht, Anseele, etc.
—13— Moreover, this correction to the regulations of the future Congress was already in existence since we had decided on verification of mandates by the nationals themselves. On this point, we cannot agree with you. We confirm the terms given in our circular: "The delegates of each of the nationalities, being better placed to check the existence of the groups in their nation, will be responsible for verifying the mandates and establishing their validity." To answer your concerns, we add: "except in special cases." This means that we believe that with regard to mandates only the interested nations can judge the points of fact and assess their validity with certainty; that on the contrary the Congress, taken as a whole, ignorant of the facts, could only decide by giving in to prejudices or sympathies. However we admit that if, exceptionally, a serious case occurs, and a rejection appears to be proposed against all justice, Congress, once it has grasped the case, will decide in the last resort.
We cannot accept that Congress is 'sovereign' in fixing its own agenda. Delegates are not rulers or masters, but servants and agents. They must therefore report to the Congress with a firm mandate on issues which have been considered in advance by their constituents.
For these reasons it is essential to follow the method we have used: first, draft a provisional agenda in accordance with the last resolution of the International Congress in London; invite all member groups to request additions or modifications, then, once all this information has been received, set, on May 31, six weeks before the Congress, the final agenda. So everyone has been consulted, everyone knows what positions to take; the mandates are clear and no surprises are possible for anybody.
You think it useful to substitute a new, broader and better formula in the 1st paragraph of the agenda; we accept it whole, as you can see from the minutes of our last meeting, which appeared in the Prolétariat of March 23.
The remainder of the provisional agenda is to be kept as it is until after receipt of the opinion of the various member nations.
You told us, Citizen Volders, that if our National Committee did not accept the decisions of the Hague Conference, you would be sure to go on to organize another Congress opposed to the one we have the task of preparing.
So you brought us an ultimatum and not a fraternal note between comrades who wanted guarantees for the union of all workers.
We have made those concessions which are possible here, without being antagonized by the impropriety of your conference, the lack of sympathy which it demonstrated towards us, the unfair lack of trust in us that it testified to. We do not want any share of responsibility for a split that could arise in the international world of labour. We hope that these feelings will inspire you too and that this is the end of these dialogues of the deaf that would make impossible the international understanding that you must wish for just as we do.
1789 was a great and radiant year for mankind; 1889 must mark another stage, higher and more fruitful still; we must affirm the universal solidarity of all workers and all socialists who want full human emancipation.
We look forward to your response with confidence. We have fulfilled and will continue to fulfill our duty in all conscience, the duty imposed on us by the Paris and London Congresses. Having given our explanations fairly, we hope that any misunderstanding will be cleared up, and that the Belgians, Germans, —15— Swiss, and Dutch, will confirm your participation just as the Danes, English, Americans, Portuguese, and Italians have already done and that you will not consent, on such an anniversary, to present capitalist and political feudalism with the delightful spectacle of the division of those whose interest and mission are to unite fraternally and indissolubly to fight it.
By order and on behalf of the National Committee,
The Secretary for France,
A. LAVY.
We never got a response to that letter, nor were any new steps taken in our regard. We were threatened with the organization of a second Congress; they organized it.
As for us, while we remained firm in our rights and in the accomplishment of our task, while we did not ignore the freely taken resolutions of the International Congresses in Paris and London, we made all the concessions needed to confirm our fairness and our spirit of tolerance.
From the very beginning, and at our request, the vast majority of the Chambres Syndicales of Paris worked with us, as is proved by a manifesto they gave to the newspaper the Prolétariat on March 9th, and which they sent to all workers' groups in France.
They had created a committee which never stopped being constantly active, in agreement with our National Committee, and to those comrades who have actively helped us we must here address our praise and our fraternal thanks.
On April 6, we published a new manifesto that took into account the claims of the Hague Conference within the limits we had laid down.
Our friends from Denmark and England made a —16— series of proposals to us that we have accepted with an eagerness to which they have done full justice. It was to be congenial to them and to avoid any doubt that on May 18th we issued the following statement:
The National Committee, organizer of the 1889 International Congress, persists in thinking, in agreement with most of the nationalities that have been consulted on this topic, that the agenda of the Congress must be fixed before it opens.
This agenda must be known long enough in advance for the delegates to be given a mandate for each article.
The participating nations will be consulted on the additions and modifications to be made to it. If three or four nations formulate the same opinion, before the 31st May, the agenda will be modified or amplified according to the wishes they have expressed to the National Committee.
No question can be added to the agenda after May 31, and still less during the Congress. However, it remains understood that if a serious event occurs unexpectedly, affecting the interests of the workers and the socialist cause, it will be open to any delegate to inform Congress and ask for a discussion and even a vote on it.
Honesty and socialist principles demand that delegates take action as they have been mandated; but common sense can tell these delegates, in the face of a serious, sudden and unforeseen event, to take upon themselves, in the interest of those who mandated them, the responsibility for a decision which time would not allow to be referred back.
On behalf of the National Committee,
The secretary for France,
A. LAVY.
—17— To meet the wishes of our comrades in England and Denmark, we have also stated, in very clear terms, that while we believe in the advantages of the verification of mandates by nationality, we accept that "any delegate in case of difficulty, will have the right to appeal to Congress."
For the same purpose, we have added two new paragraphs to the agenda.
The letters we have in our hands testify that the English and Danish recognize the absolute correctness of our attitude, our perfect fairness and the tolerance of our spirit.
We have given one last proof of this tolerance. In the last few days representations have been made to us with a view to merging the two Congresses. Our friends from Denmark have intervened once again. We have answered them in the following terms:
Paris, July 9th, 1889.
To the Central Council of the Danish Workers' Party.
Citizens,
We reply to your last note by saying:
1. In our opinion, there was and could only be one attitude to take for socialists and workers abroad in relation to the Congress: join the only legitimate Congress, make every effort to ensure that everything there takes place perfectly correctly; finally, go to the dissident Congress with the intention of returning the strayed to their duty. If all other nations had acted in this way, the current situation would not cause any fear to anyone;
2. We are ready to do everything possible for only one Congress to be held. We have proved it to you —18— on various occasions. Even after July 15th our doors will remain open, and we will forget the divisive attempts against us to facilitate holding a single Congress.
We cannot in any case legitimately oppose it. We have been delegated solely to organize the Congress. It is not therefore for us to reject any group of workers or socialists who wants to respond to the invitation of the International Congresses of Paris and London.
3. With the question thus clearly posed, our Committee cannot accept the merger of the dissident Congress with the regular Congress other than under the following conditions:
A. The verification of the mandates will be done in the combined Congress, by nationality, with the right of appeal to Congress for contested delegates.
B. The Congress will deliberate only on the two agendas of the two Congresses convened today. No new question can be added to the agenda, unless it is the result of a serious political or economic event occuring during the Congress.
C. Paragraph 2 of the agenda of the legitimate Congress will replace the analagous paragraph on the agenda of the dissenting congress.
With these reservations, we hope that your efforts succeed and we above all express the lively desire that you, our comrades in Denmark, will be in Paris in a few days to strengthen our ties of fraternal solidarity.
Please accept, citizens, our cordially revolutionary greetings.
By order and on behalf of the National Committee,
The Secretary for France
A. LAVY
—19— After this report, we wonder with real bemusement how our conduct and the numerous approaches made to the organizers of the second Congress by the English and Danish Socialists did not completely stop the split, did not restore the understanding so unfortunately broken.
Why this dissident Congress? No reason has been given publicly to justify it.
Is it because we are accused of wanting to unfairly oust one of our adversaries?
But we have always admitted all of our opponents to all of our national Congresses. How could we be so foolish as to seek to oust them from an International Congress of which we are only the conveners?
In addition, it was understood that Congress would itself decide on disputed mandates, and our acceptance of this point is the best proof of our good faith.
Would we be criticized for not wanting to agree to Congress being sovereign to set its agenda?
Oh! if so, we are proud to incur this reproach. Democrats and socialists, we will never admit that delegates to a Congress have the right to deliberate and vote without a mandate. It is the mass of citizens of our groups which must make the law, and not a small group of men who impose it on them.
Our party of republicans, democrats, and socialists, would refuse to take part in any Congress where there are only celebrities, which is not a meeting of delegates with a mandate and faithful executors of the orders of their comrades.
Would we be found to be insufficiently socialist?
Ah! we do not want to start any arguments here. But our democratic socialism can bear comparison with any other, something we look forward to all the more as we are not inclined to run away from it.
—20— So what are the causes that led to the formation of a second Congress? We would expose them without difficulty, if, while determined to defend ourselves against any slanderous imputation, we were not at the same time determined to do nothing which hinders the union worked for by many of our foreign comrades and so gladly accepted by us.
In any case, why waste more time with you, citizens, in examining the causes of this lamentable split? You have done us justice. Your presence attests to your esteem and your sympathies. For you, longer explanations are unnecessary.
England, Scotland and Ireland are represented here by 42 delegates. Despite the Parliamentary Committee of Trades Unions, whose liberalism is one hundred times below that of its members, 17 unions have joined us.
In London, a Committee received the honourable mission of smoothing out the difficulties, to bring about the merger of the two Congresses; it has failed to this day, and has only been able to record that if the split had not been resolved, the fault was not ours.
We French owe this Committee the public testimony of our gratitude for its fraternal efforts.
Despite its poverty, the Social Democratic Federation has 15 representatives here. Once again, it shows its energetic dedication to the cause of social progress.
Austria and Hungary have 7 delegates who represent 28 workers' associations for Austria and 48 associations and 18 circles for Hungary. It is a powerful effort for a nation whose freedom is so harshly treated.
Seven Spanish delegates are with us and will thus affirm that the great socialist movement beyond the Pyrenees is as alive as ever.
Italy has sent us 7 delegates who come on behalf of the workers' party of Romagna, the cities of Naples, Rome, —21— Livorno, Pesaro, and the Italian associations of Zurich, Alexandria and Cairo.
The Belgian Workers' Party officially joined us at the Jolimont Congress after the explanations given there by Citizen Paulard, delegate of our National Committee, and 7 delegates from this party represent it at the Congress.
The United States has only four delegates, but they represent thousands of those valiant Knights of Labor, whose dedication to our cause is universally admired.
The workers' associations in Portugal are poor, and yet two delegates came to us from this small and brave country which so worthily holds its place in the universal socialist movement.
At the beginning of this year we were joined by the Federation of Chambres Syndicales of Denmark. Later, our friends thought they had to withdraw. They did so on very friendly terms, saying that we had never stopped being right, that there was no reason not to come to our Congress, but that, not wishing to alienate the friendship of any socialist, they would stay at home. They have since made a new decision, and we greet with pleasure their two delegates, among whom is our friend Citizen Jensen, President of the Federation of Danish Chambres Syndicales.[15]
The Chambre SYndicales of iron moulders in Copenhagen had joined us beforehand.
From Switzerland we only have one delegate; but he represents a friendly people, and we welcome his presence, hoping that it is a pledge for the swift return of comrades who have been deceived on our account.
Poland itself, despite Russian tyranny, has delegated one of its valiant socialists.
Finally, France has given 218 member organizations and appointed 477 delegates.
—22— Paris and the provinces provide 136 Chambres Syndicales or federations of Chambres Syndicales and 7 social study circles.
42 towns in France have their representatives here.
We are proud of this result which shows that French socialist democracy has all the splendor of her youthful vigour.
Whatever the political divisions of our country for more than a year, whatever attacks have been directed against us to disorganize us and make us lose our way, we are still on our feet, more numerous, more resolute; we are on our feet for the defense of the Republic, for the assertion of the rights of labour, for the conquest of social equality; we are on our feet to reach out to you with fraternal hands, our friends from all points of the Universe, and to swear with you, a hundred years after the birth of our Revolution, that our wills and our lives will be consecrated, will be spent for the full emancipation of humanity.
The reading of this report is frequently interrupted by lively signs of approval; the end is greeted by long bursts of applause which show the National Committee that the fairness and wisdom of its attitude have been recognized.
Citizen Lavy then declares that the task of the National Committee is over, that it now just needs to disappear, leaving Congress henceforth sole master of its own organization and so proving once more that it does not intend to impose itself on anybody.
The Congress proceeds to the vote to select the Bureau.
Citizen Snow, English, is appointed chairman for the foreign delegation; Citizen J. Joffrin, Vice-President of the Paris City Council, as chairman of the French delegation. The assessors are: citizeness —23— Simcox, English, and citizen Andrea Costa, Italian;[16] the secretaries, citizens Lavy and Galiment.
It is decided that the Bureau will be replaced for each session.
Citizen Gilliard, of the Union Française, complains that he has been asked for his ticket several times in the hall, and asks that the stewards be provided with their details.
The French chairman says that Congress is not assembled to waste time in useless words. Celebrities get a lot of attention; we need to give them a little less and think instead about the socialist task that needs to be carried out.
He welcomed the foreign delegates and thanked them for giving their comrades in France the proof of their sympathies. They feel that our country is one of the powerful agents of the socialist movement. And this is so true that the International fell the day the French socialist party fell. If it is reborn today, we owe it to the fertile blood of the martyrs of 1871.
As for the workers' Party, it has always been fraternal and it cannot be surprised to meet with sympathy. It is not its fault that there are two Congresses. But in any case, since the split exists, let us not allow it to damage the socialist cause too much. Let each Congress, forgetting the other, act in the best interest of the proletariat. Let it work. The Party of work must give the example of useful labour.
Once a translation has been made into various languages, Citizen Joffrin reads:
— A congratulatory telegram from 1,500 workers in Bristol (England), who wish for the international unity of workers;
— A telegram from the "Club of Socialist Democrats assembled to celebrate the fall of the Bastille who —24— send their fraternal greetings to the two Workers' Congresses";
— A telegram from the Circle of Social Studies of Rome, celebrating the fall of the Bastille, which greets the International Socialist Congresses, and wishes for the reestablishment of the International Workingmen's Association.
The French chairman then reads motions from the groups from Butte-Montmartre and the Chambre Syndicale of the clog makers.
Citizen André-Gély announces to the delegates that, in the evening, a reception in their honour will be given at the Wagram room.
Citizen Fulgueroso, a Spanish delegate, reports a strike of the textile workers of Barcelona and requests the workers of France not to go into competition with their comrades in Spain.
Citizen Croce, an Italian delegate, says that the workers' Party of his country had wanted to be represented in the Congress. He hopes that this Congress will be followed by real action Congresses of the united workers. He tells of the efforts made by the Italian country people for the triumph of socialism. He describes workers coming to join this movement and ends by expressing the hope that this Congress will be the last where we talk without acting.
Citizen de Campos, a Portuguese delegate, expresses the wish that the workers' International should be reconstituted as soon as possible.
Citizen Nears, an English delegate from the Federation of Radical Clubs, expresses the friendly feelings of his comrades for our Congress.
Citizen Jensen, President of the Danish Chambres Syndicales, tells of a Copenhagen joiners' strike which left 3,000 workers unemployed. He describes the employers trying to deceive these workers to make them submit to their claims. They are asking for help from all workers, their brothers.
Citizen Dobosy, delegate of the Austro-Hungarian Socialists, —25— brings the fraternal greetings of the socialists of Vienna and Buda-Pesth. He has just received a telegram to this effect, from the federation of Chambres Syndicales in the latter city.
Citizen Herbert Burrows, delegate of a branch of the Social Democratic Federation, and of the Society of Women Cigar and Cigarette makers, moves that the mandates be verified. He asks, in addition, for the entire foreign delegation to join the English delegation in endorsing everything the French Workers' Party has done to organize the Congress and for revolutionary socialist action. He declares that the conquest of the public authorities is preparing the Social Revolution.
Citizen Joffrin, Chairman, asks the assembly to form its administrative committee.
Citizen Costa proposes that the National Committee fulfill this function.
Citizen Lavy explains what the role of this Committee will be: to receive resolutions, examine them, coordinate them, and publish them; to carry out all physical organization for the Congress; and finally, to settle financial questions. He insists that a delegate of each nationality should be attached to the National Committee for this task. He does not want to expose this Committee to any suspicion, even if unjustified.
Citizen Gelez asks for the prior verification of the mandates.
Citizen Burns also proposes that the verification of the mandates take place immediately, so that each nationality can designate a delegate for the administrative committee.
Citizen Lavy explains that the examination of the French mandates will be very long. He moves that the meeting be adjourned and that the various delegations meet immediately to verify the mandates.
This proposal is adopted and the session ends at half past five.
—26—
The same evening, the Parisian workers' groups organizing the international Congress hosted a welcoming reception for delegates from the provinces and abroad.
The Wagram hall was chosen for this purpose.
From eight o'clock the crowd arrives and soon seven or eight hundred delegates to the Congress and representatives of Parisian corporations take their place around tables in the huge Etoile room.
The bureau is made up as follows: chairman, Hyndman, delegate for England; assessors, Andrea Costa, Italian deputy, and citizen Avez, delegate for Paris; secretary, Maupas, provincial delegate.
Citizen André-Gély, on behalf of the Bourse du Travail, welcomes the delegates and thanks the City Council for its liberality which allows Parisian workers to give a dignified reception to workers from all over the world. He recommends that the provincial delegates hunt down the hornets which raid the social hive and preserve the Republic; and that the foreign delegates oppose the coalition of kings with a coalition of the peoples to achieve emancipation of the workers in the Universal Republic. (Prolonged applause.)
His speech was immediately translated into English by citizen A.S. Headingley.
Next Citizen Joffrin rises. On behalf of the City Council —27— — he can almost say in the name of the majority of this Council — he wishes a warm welcome to these rugged workers who have come from everywhere, and who will take even more vivid ideas of emancipation and of the Republic back to their country or province.
The princes turn their noses up at the Exhibition;[17] in contrast, here are the peoples gathered in Paris. Paris prefers them; may they come within its walls to show solidarity and shake hands.
They will say that France only wants peace, an honourable peace with the outside world and a republic inside its borders, because the lion of the people, after a moment of weakness, will know how to crush this ridiculous baker,[18] who is offering our freedoms for auction to the highest bidder, between its powerful jaws. But we will establish the universal republic through labour.
Citizen Joffrin's speech is literally punctuated with applause, and it ends amid the enthusiasm of all, foreigners and nationals shouting: Vive la Sociale![19] Down with Boulanger!
Citizens Bowen, delegate of the Knights of Labor, followed by Andrea Costa and Croce, Italian delegates, give loudly applauded speeches in turn.
The choir of the carvers' Chambre Syndicale brought out the brilliance of this very intimate party, with a sprinkling of good wines and enlivened by the most perfect harmony and the broadest cordiality.
1. The name 'Possibilist' has been added to the title to make the proceedings easier to distinguish from the proceedings of the 'Marxist' congress. In the original printed proceedings, the only difference in the title of the two Congresses is that the Possibilist Congress includes the word 'Socialist'.
2. That is, the Fédération des travailleurs socialistes de France (FTSF), also known as the Possibilists and led by Paul Brousse, as opposed to the Parti Ouvrier Français (POF), (the Marxists) led by Jules Guesde. Throughout these proceedings, when the phrase 'French workers' Party' is used it is to refer either to the French socialist movement as a whole, or, as in this case to the FTSF alone; the POF is never mentioned directly.
3. The London Congress had been organized by the British Trade Unions, with the additional involvement of the Social Democratic Federation (SDF) and the FTSF. It was during that Congress that negotiations over the involvement of the German and Austrian socialist parties broke down, leading to the two separate Paris Congresses.
4. That is, the national committee of the FTSF.
5. Aimé Lavy, leading member of the FTSF, would be elected as member of parliament for Seine the following year.
6. Jean Allemane was expelled from the FTSF in 1890, and subsequently formed the syndicalist-oriented Parti Ouvrier Socialiste-Révolutionnaire, criticised by both Possibilists and Marxists for its support of the general strike as a tactic.
7. "Conseiller prud'homme" - a post filled by a member of the public, similar to jury service in the UK.
8. Paul Brousse, leader of the Possibilist current in the FTSF (also known as the 'Broussists').
9. In 1888 Joffrin had joined with the Republicans Clemenceau and Arthur Ranc to create the Society for the Rights of Man and Citizen, in order to form a common socialist-republican front against Boulanger. The Society had its seat in the Rue Cadet, and 'Cadettism' became a shorthand for the accusation that the Possibilists were allies of bourgeois parties, one of the arguments against merging the two Congresses used by the left fringe of the 'Marxist' parties.
10. The Prolétariat was the party paper of the FTSF.
11. Smith Headingley was a regular intermediary for the French FTSF and the British SDF; he also translated for French trade unionists at meetings of the TUC. He was strongly disliked by Engels, who called him a 'lout-interpreter' in his letters (MECW Vol. 48), mainly because of his closeness to Hyndman.
12. Liebknecht gave the equivalent report at the Marxist congress.
13. In 1880 liberal and radical republicans founded the Union des Chambres Syndicales Ouvrieres de France, led by the journalist Jean Barberet. The 'Barberettistes' were on the right wing of the union movement, but of diminishing importance by 1889.
14. The Chambres Syndicales were area based organisations specialised by industry or trade. It appears that they could also include employers' bodies. The direct equivalent of the British Trades Council was the Bourse de travail, which has the literal meaning of Labour Exchange, and did actually later function as a labour exchange. Given the specifically French nature of these organizations the terms have been left untranslated throughout. The English language minutes of the 1888 London Congress translate the term as 'syndical chambers', which does not seem to be an improvement.
15. Following internal divisions within the Danish socialist party, two party representatives were delegated to the Marxist congress, while two union representatives were delegated to the Possibilist congress, representing the left and right wings of the party respectively.
16. Andrea Costa, leader of the Partito Socialista Rivoluzionario Italiano, was attending both Congresses with a mandate to get them to unite, but failing this, to abstain in all votes in both congresses.
17. Since the 1889 Paris Exhibition - which included the Eiffel Tower - celebrated the centenary of the French Revolution, it was boycotted by European royalty.
18. A mocking reference to Boulanger.
19. Shortened form of Vive la Republique Democratique et Sociale, 'slogan of the revolutionary poor since the June insurrection of 1848' (Raimund Rütten, « À la recherche d’une république démocratique et sociale », Cahiers d’histoire. Revue d’histoire critique 139, 2018 (DOI))