Chair: Citizen Cunninghame Graham, Member of the English Parliament. Lafargue announces the arrival of three new Delegates. The German socialists of Buenos-Aires have given Citizen Liebknecht a mandate to represent them and send a report on the situation in the Argentine Republic.
Telegrams and letters of congratulation are shared. Liebknecht informs the congress that yesterday evening at the reception hundreds of French workers met at the Hôtel de Ville, and all assured him that instead of the chauvinism and hatred which is ascribed to them, they harboured the most brotherly feelings towards the Germans, and that they only wished to express them in action. This information is most warmly applauded. — Many delegates at the Possibilist Congress have told Bureau members that they had gone to the Possibilist Congress by mistake, and that they —86— sincerely regretted not having joined the Congress of the united socialists.
After these diverse communications have finished, the Congress continues with the agenda.
Cunninghame Graham explains that it is almost impossible to speak of a social revolution with English workers. The excess of work, misery and drunkenness have completely ruined them. It is already much if they show an interest in practical questions. If you want to win them over to a movement, you have to arouse their interest with practical questions.
One such question is that of the eight-hour normal working day which can bring workers all over the world to unite in a common action. The reduction of working hours is an absolute necessity for the health and mental development of the worker. Long hours of work condemn the worker to the existence of a beast of burden. This is the case, for example, with the Scottish miners who work eleven and a half to twelve and a half hours in the pits and who come back from work in such a state that they hardly take the time to eat as they are overcome by the need to sleep. But a dull sleep has hardly restored their strength when they have to leave for the pit again. In such a life there is no possibility of satisfying intellectual needs. It is a duty for everyone to oppose such a situation through international labour legislation. If the law does not intervene, the situation of the workers will become progressively worse. In Australia there is a law that fixes and reduces daily working hours. Well, the Australian workers are in a materially better position than their European brethren; they are also intellectually well developed and advanced, since they have time and leisure to occupy themselves with a range of questions. The capitalists strive to maintain the belief that a reduction in hours of labour must necessarily result in a reduction in wages. This claim is a lie, because the opposite occurs. The shorter the working day, the higher the wages. In Massachusetts, for example, where the eight-hour normal working day exists, the workers earn 3 shillings (1 Sh. = 1 Mark) more per day than the workers in the neighbouring states where the working hours are longer. In contrast to this there is a district in England characterized by the development that capitalism and its so-called “civilization” have produced there. Here women are busy making iron chains 14 to 15 hours a day and earn only 4½ to 5½ shillings a week. The longer the working hours, the lower the wages.. The wage rate increases with the decrease in working hours.
The question of the fixing of working hours is of paramount significance for the development of the worker. The speaker therefore urges all delegates to put aside all personal jealousy for the moment, as well as all differences of principle, in order to fight together for the reduction of daily working hours. The eight-hour normal working day is a first step towards liberating labour from capital. (Applause.) —
Citizen Guesde reminds Congress that there are three questions left on its agenda. He therefore recommends that all proposals be sent in writing to the Bureau, which has to combine them into general resolutions on which the Congress will decide in its afternoon session. Vaillant suggests —87— allowing all speakers on the list to speak until 1 p.m., and to proceed to the voting in the afternoon session.
Citizen Molkenbuhr demands that the list of speakers be set aside in order to proceed immediately to the discussion of the resolutions of the Congress. One speaker should speak for and another against the resolutions and as much account as possible should be taken of the old list of speakers.
An end to the debate on the motions was demanded, and passed by Congress. Citizen Kloß, delegate of the German carpenters, argues that certain quarters are of the opinion that it is incompatible with socialist principles to demand legislation on work. This view seems erroneous to him. The socialists, the conscious workers, have a duty to pave the way so that the broad masses do not come to a halt on their way to the promised land of socialism, so that capitalism does not let the masses degenerate to such an extent that they are mentally and physically unable to get back on their feet. For the working class of Germany it is even more necessary to champion such practical demands, because political action is greatly impeded by the present situation. For the same reason, one must not lose sight of the question of trade organization. Like the question of labour protection legislation, it is useful for winning over and educating the masses.
The speaker does not fail to recognize that many socialists are against trade associations because these do not provide everything for the intellectual education of the workers that the socialists want to see. But it is precisely the task of the socialists to raise these trade associations to a higher level of education and development. They have to form a kind of leaven in the womb of the professional associations, they have to awaken class consciousness, in a word, enable the members to understand their present situation and to fulfill their historical mission. The French resolution has not yet been read out in German, and the speaker only knows Bebel’s resolution. For the reasons he has just presented, he calls on all German delegates to unanimously vote in support of the Bebel resolution, and above all the demand for an eight-hour normal working day.
Bebel states that the Bureau had merged the resolution he had tabled with those of Guesde and Morris, and that this joint resolution would be presented to Congress in the afternoon session.
Citizen Lefebvre, representative of the weavers of Amiens, emphasizes the need for trade organization.
The weavers of Amiens work 12 to 13 hours a day.
The manufacturers employ more and more women, from whom they get work at lower prices, and who, through their competition, reduce the wages of men. Until recently there was no organization of the weavers. But in the past year, a work stoppage by the velvet weavers for a wage increase gave rise to the formation of a trade organization, which today has 350 to 400 members. This trade organization marches hand in hand with the Socialists of Amiens, and its influence is beginning to make itself felt not only among the weavers, but also among the workers in other trades. So the shoemakers have followed the example given and have also established themselves as a trade organization.
Comrade Lucian Weil cannot agree with Cunninghame Graham’s argument. The latter emphasizes the need for palliative measures in order to be able to advance the work of agitation and organization —88— among the mass of English workers. Comrade Weil is of the opposite opinion.
If the working masses of England are still backwards and have not attained class consciousness, the reason is that the proletarians have been restrained for too long by promises of reforms which are illusory at best. In order to educate the masses, one must spread the idea of revolt among them. Such demands and such promises of improvement only deceive and dumb the workers down.
If he (the speaker) has become an anarchist, this happened precisely because the leaders of French Marxism clearly revealed the mechanism of the economy, clearly showed that the iron law of wages has made all efforts to improve this mechanism through reforms hopeless. One should therefore not expect anything from petty measures. The speaker himself wholeheartedly wishes for an improvement in the situation of the working people, but he is convinced that this cannot be achieved through reforms and legislation. Universal suffrage is a decoy for the masses who have only one truly effective means at their disposal: the permanent movement. Only the social revolution can cure all social ills. (Applause from some French anarchists and English delegates.)
Citizen Ihrer, delegate of the women workers of Gera-Reuss,[a] states that the organization of working women is an unavoidable precondition for the improvement of the situation of both male and female workers. Just as men organize themselves everywhere in order to regulate their working conditions, so working women must also group themselves in professional organizations. As long as working women are unorganized, they will in a certain sense and in actual fact remain competitors of men, rather than just their comrades at work and in the struggle.
If men’s organizations are not joined by those of women workers, it will be very difficult, even impossible, for the workers to be victorious in their economic struggles against capital.
Only organization will enable working women to establish and apply the principle: equal pay for equal work — the only means of removing competition between men and women. Unfortunately, women do not yet sufficiently understand the need to organize and take part in public life. The proof of this is that, in spite of the considerable number of women employed in industry, very few representatives of women workers are present at this congress. So it is the duty of all socialists to help women in the work of organizing. The objection that women are still too backwards to understand the importance of coming together is not valid. Even male workers were not always at the pitch of development they are today; for them, too, it took a great deal of effort to achieve political maturity and organization. Women workers everywhere show an excellent predisposition to join the march of the workers’ movement, but the seeds must be sown. The speaker has received letters from all parts of Germany from working women who express their joy at being represented at this workers’ congress. This fact shows that working women are beginning to understand their situation. It is the duty of comrades in all countries to help women strive for their independence — strivings that benefit both sexes.
The German police suppressed the beginning of a movement among women workers in 1886; the women who were at their head were punished; —89— citizenness Guillaume-Schack herself was expelled for her agitation. But police interference showed that women workers were on the right track. Since then the movement has happily re-emerged, and the associations, into which a large and sympathetic public of working women crowd, demonstrate definite progress. It is also to be hoped that this congress will have the result of contributing to the organization of proletarian women and of giving rise to professional groups of working women in all the larger cities. Recognizing their own interests, these organizations will march hand in hand with the great socialist workers‘ movement, and they will be the means of regaining the social and civil rights which women are now denied. The women of the bourgeoisie beg for these rights in petitions, whereas the women of the proletariat demand them on the basis of the socialist program.
The next congress will bring proof of the work of the completed organization in the person of many representatives of working women. It is time for the conscious supporters of the workers‘ movement to teach working women the slogan with which Karl Marx brought about the unification of all proletarians. The slogan: “Proletarians of all countries unite!” also means: Working women of all countries unite! and this must become our motto. (Warm applause.)
The President asks the assembly whether they want to give the floor to John Burns, although he has not been delegated to this congress. Burne has received a mandate to attend the Possibilist congress, but since he himself is deeply sympathetic to this Socialist congress, he feels the need to assure the assembly of this and to greet the representatives of the whole proletariat.
The congress unanimously gives the floor to John Burns, who explains how it was only by pure chance that he attended the collectivist congress. The Trades Union, of which he is a member, received the invitation from the Possibilists first, and the invitation to the Congress of the combined Socialists only arrived after the first invitation had already been formally accepted. He regretted that the efforts to unite the two congresses had not been successful, but he hoped that the proletariat would nevertheless benefit, because both congresses had dealt with the same questions. The speaker represents 57,000 engineering workers organized in trades unions. It is generally believed on the Continent that the English trade unions are fundamentally reactionary and conservative, and this is in part true. The majority of the trades unions have not yet understood the necessity for internationalism in every workers’ movement; they imagine that they can improve their situation through purely trade organizations, through an exclusively national approach. They therefore show little understanding and sympathy for the struggles of the non-English proletariat. Incidentally, indifference for the brothers of the other countries, as well as the reactionary tendencies of the trades unions, is not the fault of the organized workers, but of a few bosses who are rapidly going into a decline and already discredited among their own supporters. The bulk of the trade unionists are beginning to understand the error they have made, and, borne up by the dizzying rapidity of the economic conditions developing in England, they are becoming more and more lucid and aware. In five years from now, the majority of the trade unionists will have passed over to the socialist camp and, through their entry, will have significantly increased the power of the international parliament. The beginning of this development has been made. “In my name and in that of the workers I represent, I greet the congress and wish it the best of success for its work. (volleys of applause.) —
—90— Citizen Cesar de Paepe, Belgian delegate, takes the floor to support international labour legislation, as his party gave him a mandate to take a position on this question. In addition, it is probably the last time that he will speak before an international congress, since his health is very poor.
The speaker wants to refute some of the objections that are usually made against international labour legislation. It is asserted from various quarters that there will be no material results, because governments will not approve the demands in question; one would have to be content with the agitational results of these demands, and consequently it would be better to draw up more radical formulations. The speaker does not find these objections to be justified. He is of the opinion that demands that can be implemented immediately, must be applied and implemented slowly and gradually. We demand a lot of governments and no doubt we are getting little and that slowly, but step by step we are getting what we want. Our demands are increasingly taking hold of public opinion, which in turn is putting pressure on governments. Equally unjustified is the objection raised by bourgeois economists and anarchists that labour legislation threatens workers‘ freedom.
“Freedom of contract” for workers today denotes absolute freedom of exploitation. Only after socialization of the means of labour can one speak of freedom of work. The anarchists wrongly declare regulation of work to be a restriction of personal freedom. Personal will alone is not enough to maintain and advance the social mechanism. Regulation of the conditions of production, of working conditions, is just as necessary in the present as in the future. If the social body is to live and be active, it must be organized! — From a third side it is argued that international regulation of work is impossible because of the different working conditions in the different countries. But notwithstanding national and local differences, the power of facts has already led us to manage many things internationally and to hold them in common. Thus the workers of all countries complain about the same evils, and everywhere formulate the same demands. Besides, it is very easy to accept international demands under particular and special conditions. For example, the requirement for a minimum wage. We are far from understanding by this formula that wages should be the same in all parts of the globe; but we are of the opinion that a minimum wage, below which the worker‘s income must not fall, should be fixed everywhere, taking into account those special circumstances. In any case, many other requirements have already been formulated internationally and recognized as internationally practicable, e.g. the requirements regarding health care, regarding the use of toxic substances, regarding the normal working day, etc. The creation of international workers' legislation is just as feasible as are the international post and telegraph services.“
The speaker thus arrives at the conclusion that international labour legislation is necessary and applauds the appeal of the Swiss Federal Council, even if he makes much more far-reaching demands, and formulates a complete program of what the workers can already achieve through reforms within today's society (Applause.) —
—91— On behalf of the trade associations of the Provinces, Vaillant reads out the following significant statement: “The representatives of the workers organised in trade associations in the provinces inform the foreign delegations that none of their organizations have any anarchist tendency and that it was only by chance that the delegates of some Parisian anarchist groups took the floor first in the general discussion, and that for a moment it appeared as if they were the interpreters of the French proletariat. (There follow the signatures of the representatives of more than 200 provincial trade associations.) (Applause.)
The anarchists reply to this statement as follows: “We protest against the terms of the communication by which a certain number of provincial delegates declare that the organizations they represent reject anarchist teachings. We have no less right to speak on behalf of the provinces than these delegates.“
“We speak in our own name name and by the power of the mandates entrusted to us.“
“The truth is that if the trade organisations, corporate groups and socialist study circles represented by the signatories of this communication are not anarchists, the organizations, groups and corporations of which we are representatives are so entirely.“
“As a result, we all protest against these unverifiable allegations, which have the purpose of making it seems that the French provinces are completely anti-anarchist, and that the comrades who have spoken since the opening of the general discussion represent only an insignificant number. We leave it to our brothers in all countries to evaluate this practice.”
This counter-protest bears the names of 9 signatories, one of whom states that he represents fifty sections of the Craftsmen’s trade association. —
Citizen Beck, Russian delegate, begins by stating that the proletarian and socialist demands for the legal regulation of labour which will be voted on at this congress are certainly the most vigorous counter to the bourgeois class and their governments. Reaction has assumed dimensions hitherto unknown, and it has become universal. Well, it is known that this reaction has always received considerable support from the absolutism of the Russian government. It is therefore in the interests of the workers’ parties and the socialists of all countries that the fall of Russian absolutism should take place in the shortest possible time, all the more so since even those European governments that have so far distinguished themselves through their democratic tendencies are beginning to place themselves at the disposal of the despot of St. Petersburg.
The question of the ways and means needed for the demands of the workers to triumph is therefore closely connected with the question: what is the social power in Russia which will overthrow this realm of illegality, abuse and arbitrariness?
In view of the amount of time available to the speaker, he must refrain from citing statistics. But before he discusses the question itself, he must say a word about the way in which from time to time people in Europe and even in Russia believe it to be already solved.
Russia, we are told, is in a transitional period from the old economic forms to new forms. The natural economy dies out to make way for market production; the rural co-operative is falling apart, while capitalist production is developing more rapidly from day to day; at the same time —92— the bourgeoisie, whose class consciousness is more and more alive, begins to find that the present political forms of Russia are holding back their development; the collision between it and the absolutist regime is therefore inevitable and will have as its first result the fall of absolutism, etc. The political and revolutionary program which is the result of this conception is very clear and simple; but the idealism of this view is immediately apparent when one takes a look at Russian history over the past 25 years. It is important for the speaker to linger over this point, for he regards the hopes based on the revolutionary tendencies of the Russian bourgeoisie as completely illusory and likely to have unfortunate consequences for the common cause of the Russian socialists and the socialists of Western Europe. Significant as the advantages promised by this illusion are, the speaker fights it nonetheless, since every illusion must be fought.
At the beginning of the second half of this century the Russia of Nicholas the First, of Arakcheyev, the Russia of serfdom and the unlimited arbitrariness of the nobility sank into the deepest swamp of dissipation and inner rottenness. The productive forces of the people, shackled by a police organization of the judiciary and their accessories in the local administration, tried to overcome the obstacles blocking their development. The interests of Europe, where industry had developed mightily, were in conflict with an institution which gave a market as large as Russia into the exclusive possession of a band of aristocrats and district satraps, so that in the Crimean War from 1851—56 a terrible clash took place between old Russia and bourgeois Europe, from which the former emerged completely defeated. This defeat, which found expression in a different form in the words that in 1860 Alexander II. addressed to the nobility of Moscow — “Let us free”, he said, “the serfs from above, so that they do not free themselves from below” — made the existing situation impossible. The indignation of the peasants drove Russian society and government to act with more decisiveness. The manifesto of February 19, 1861 opened a new era in the history of Russia: it abolished serfdom, it created the basic principles for broad reforms to be followed in the field of justice, district self-government, administration, censorship, etc. The majority of these reforms did indeed take place within a certain period. From 1862 to 1870 the separation of administration and teaching from arbitrary rule, the establishment of the “Zemstvo”, open court proceedings, election of justices of the peace and community institutions were all introduced. The principle of election by the three-class electoral system, while far from being the ideal form of participation of the population in local administration, nevertheless marked a great step forward. All these reforms, as well as the regulation of general compulsory military service, the purchase of peasant land, etc. did not in truth extend self-government enough, but at least they changed the character of social relations in the period that followed. The Zemstvo and the municipalities, to which society directly and indirectly sacrificed their best energies, began to work energetically, and achieved visible success. The questions which had a direct bearing on the needs of the people were brought onto the agenda and partially resolved; public education, public welfare, public supplies, assurance of the products of the peoples labour: an example[b] of the tutelage of the government making a considerable advance in a short time, leaving far behind all that —93— had been achieved in this area by an omnipotent government. The progress achieved illustrates the brilliant victory which the principle of the election of officials had won over that of bureaucratic institutions.
At the same time essential changes had taken place in the economic field. Labour, freed from the yoke of serfdom, became legally master of itself, and organized itself on different bases, distributed in a different way among the various branches of national production. One part, while still occupied in the rural economy, began to take part in rural trade and industry. The capitalists, who until then had concentrated almost exclusively on agriculture, went into the fields of usury and manufacture. The unfavorable conditions of land distribution forced the peasants in many cases to leave the land allotted to them. To the proletariat, which in the previous period had been employed in the factories, steelworks and mines belonging to the crown and the nobility, — and to the proletariat, which emerged from the domestic serfs, who received no share of the land after the abolition of serfdom — was now added the peasant proletariat, and the labour available on the market increased steadily; the offer of hands in excess assured capital an immediate triumph. That triumph was all the more certain since capitalism came to power in Russia at a time when the development of mechanical engineering and technology had already reached a high degree. In this case, foreign capital may have played a more important role than Russian capital itself, since it was attracted by the market in cheap labour and the expansion of the market for sales. But above all, it was the government that contributed to the triumphs of capitalism in Russia. Since it had a completely free hand, for many years it almost exhausted the state treasury, distributing billions in the form of subsidies, premiums, and guaranteed returns, to the detriment of the people. In the period following the liberation of the serfs, the state budget was surrendered by the almighty government to a handful of predatory manufacturers, usurers, and large landowners.
As a result of these events there was an enormous upswing in national production, in commercial turnover, in the development of the credit system, and in the means of transport. In twenty years Russia has taken its place at the side of the powers of Western Europe, if not through the relative scale of its production, at least through the character of its economic development. The national debt, which exceeds 5 billion, is the best proof of the efforts of the government to march on the path of capitalism, but also the proof of the misery which this has created for the people. Capitalism has thus triumphed in Russia as it has triumphed everywhere. But does capital play the same role in Russia as it does everywhere it has secured its empire? Has it concentrated the productive forces in Russia, as elsewhere, in a limited number of factories, steelworks, and mines? Has it amassed the means of production in the hands of a small number of proprietors? How have forms of economic popular life been preserved up to now, such as the village collective (mir), the productive collective (artel)? Why wasn't absolute rule abolished in Russia with the abolition of serfdom, as happened elsewhere? To answer these questions one must consider the historical conditions of the forms of social and political life in Russia — conditions which influenced the emergence of the new forms and which occurred after the establishment of serfdom. The rural community, —94— the historical basis of property and economic conditions, created a certain spirit of solidarity in the rural population, which was able to withstand the destructive endeavours of big capital. The upbringing of the intelligentsia, which for centuries had grown up in slavish obedience to the organs of government, the suppression of their most moderate political aspirations, the rule of the Romanovs — all these have had effects which could not disappear in a few decades of a new life. The lack of unity and the contemplative, tolerant temperament of these classes have served as the foundation on which absolutism rested. But besides these circumstances there was something else at work both before and after the abolition of serfdom — that is the influence of international capital and the development which it had reached at the moment when it was introduced into Russia. If there is one country in which the empire of capitalism can be said to have arrived too late to fulfill its full historical role, it is surely Russia. The abolition of serfdom took place there at a time when capitalism in Europe had already aroused all the internal contradictions that are inseparable from it. One of these contradictions, the one which exists between the growing need to expand the volume of production and the diminishing capacity of the market to take up the quantities of goods with which it is inundated, has already generated sporadic rebellions on the part of the market in Europe against this type of production, exchange and distribution. The Russian bourgeoisie, which immediately after the abolition of serfdom, had gifted itself competition in the supply of hands, complained in the person of the large landowners about the high price of labour power, although it was and still is so low that many capitalists do choose to work with the most primitive equipment. But these complaints had their origin in the uncertainty of the domestic market. The more capitalism expands, the more this market uncertainty increases, the more the purchasing power of the people diminishes absolutely and relatively as the machine replaces the worker. At a certain point in capitalist development the bourgeoisie finds itself compelled to sacrifice part of its advantages in order to preserve the internal market. Then big capital does not destroy the forms of small business and small property such as domestic industry, small industry, the rural collective; it takes them for its own purposes without destroying them, as required for the domestic market.
These facts, of which there are analogous examples in the history of every other country, have their significance for the economic life of Russia. All statistical studies have shown that the number of large factories and steelworks has remained almost entirely the same over the past ten years; likewise that the number of workers employed in big industry, small industry, and agriculture in general has hardly increased. Further, landed property is far from accumulating in the hands of a small number of owners; the relations between big industry and national production in general have hardly changed at all, although the former had a great boom from 1881 to 1882 - a boom attested by the rapid introduction of machines into industry. Besides, apart from the big factories, small industry employs a much larger number of workers than big industry, and this number is not going down. These facts are explained by the inner weakness characteristic of capitalism in its final epoch, and indicative of the disorganization of universal industry.
Russia had more or less escaped the industrial crisis of 1873, —95— but was completely gripped by the general crisis from 1879 to 1882, a crisis which still persists today. Since then, Russian industry has been subject to all the consequences of the internal decline of international capitalism. Production in many branches of industry begins to diminish, as does the expansion of foreign trade. The safest large ventures become dubious and often fail. The only means of guaranteeing the market, that is, the conquest of countries and their protection by tax frontiers and Cossacks, has become ineffective, since England in the East and Austria in the south-west feel the need to resort to the same means. The conquest of new markets is very difficult, and capitalist Europe awaits with horror the moment of economic emancipation of the colonies. At the same time the workers are thrown on the street in their thousands and form large armies of "barefoots" (vagabonds); Thousands of peasants who have left their fields are looking in vain for work or a place to found a new farm. The government is looking for ways to prevent the effects of this situation. Count Ignatieff thinks of an anti-Semitic movement; the workers are transported en masse from the industrial centers to their home towns. Revolts of the peasantry, which the government is suppressing with military force, by condemning the leaders to death, and constant walkouts from work, these are the characteristic facts of the last few years in Russia. Capitalism, which was introduced in Russia at a time when it had become a universal and international mode of production, is thus on the way to ending its historical role, both there and elsewhere.
Together with all the other countries of Europe, Russia is now approaching the end of this era in that it too is subject to the effects of international capitalism. It is therefore too late to speak of the destruction of popular forms of production and property when capital has been compelled to maintain them since the beginning of its era in Russia. It is too late to speak of the development of capitalism in the near future, at a time when it is beginning to collapse under its own weight. Finally, it is too late to take into consideration the liberal and improving strivings of the Russian bourgeoisie, since immediately after the abolition of serfdom it did not have the necessary strength to establish organic connections with the interests of the people and decieve them, as the European bourgeoisie has. Since its appearance in Russia, capitalism has needed unlimited power to guarantee its parasitic existence, to silence all voices which denounced the perils of its rule, to stifle all critical minds, and to defend itself against fighting socialism. Absolute rule has therefore been and will be in future the unvarnished political program of the Russian bourgeoisie. The interests of the Romanov dynasty and the bourgeoisie are the same.
It is characteristic of the history of Russia in recent decades that the various socialist parties are at the forefront of the revolutionary movement against absolutism, that it is they who oppose it on behalf of the people. This fact is explained by the fact that the workers’ demands remain on the agenda and that they demand a change in the present political order. The bourgeoisie, denying its historical traditions, has become reactionary and conservative; it is the working classes which will produce the future. Russia does not yet have an organized working class conscious of its historical tasks, but the socialist party will claim the political ground, and political rights are —96— absolutely necessary for its development. In Europe the revolutionary socialists defend these rights against the bourgeoisie, which has already acquired them. In Russia they are compelled to fight absolutism and the bourgeoisie at the same time in order to achieve political freedom. Socialism is the only power that will know how to gain and preserve political rights; it alone will overcome Russian absolutism. The Russian bourgeoisie is compelled to maintain the various popular forms of production and property. But it maintains them today to undermine them tomorrow, and the misery of the people cannot be cured by the rural community. Only the complete transformation of the political, social and economic order can help here.
However, just as the socialists of Europe have their reasons to demand labour legislation, just so the Russian socialists demand (or at least those do who agree with the program of the Narodnaja volja) protection of the village collectives and the trade collectives (artels) by the state. In the current conditions, the Russian people have benefited from these remnants of their historical past. In the years 1880 to 1883 — years of crisis for Russia — the factory workers, in the absence of any organization, could not defend themselves against the manufacturers and usurers; the rural workers found means of resistance in their customs and practices, which are a result of the institutions of the village collectives. In a large number of districts the “Mir”, the administrative organ of the peasantry, managed to bring in a fixed wage for rural workers, and this example was followed by the governments of entire governorates. Let us hope that the facts presented here suffice to justify the demands of the Russian socialists who follow the program of “Narodnaja volja”, regarding the support of the village collective, which as a form of popular life is of great importance for the present moment as it is for the near future.
Citizen Dulucq is in favor of international labour legislation, but he demands that Congress pass formal resolutions on the way in which the parties and the organizations that have agreed to it will have to fight for the realization of the demands made.
Citizen Combemoreil notes that the Municipal Council of Paris is doing much to introduce the 9 hour working day for the city’s workers. The political rulers annulled the resolution of the municipal council; but the latter, while maintaining this resolution, also introduced the nine-hour working day for workers employed by private entrepreneurs in work for the city. It is in the majority united in the demand for protective measures, as a necessary means to prepare the workers for their complete liberation.
Citizen Chauvière, Municipal Councillor of Paris, recommends as the best means to implement the resolutions of the Congress, the disarmament of the bourgeoisie demanded by Blanqui through the abolition of the standing armies and the arming of the people.
Dupré, delegate of the cabinetmakers of the suburb of St. Antoine, refutes the opinion that workers can hope for good results from labour legislation. Up to our day legislation has never turned out to be for the best and for the benefit of the people. All yesterday’s legislation is worm-eaten, and tomorrow’s will be putrid. Economic questions have been talked about for long enough, but with all the treatment of these questions the cause of the people has not advanced. We have to destroy capital, the capitalists and —97— all monopolies. (Ironic heckling from the Germans: "All must go to rack and ruin!")[c]
Citizen Domela Nieuwenhuis, Dutch delegate, begins by saying that it seems to him that the congress shows great success in so far as it expresses the unity of socialists around the world, but that it shows little success in relation to the agenda which has only been started on the final day, when, with the exception of a few privileged persons, no one is allowed to speak for more than five minutes! Well! I declare, he says, that I am not a magician who can discuss such a great and weighty question in so little time. That is why I will not use my speaking time for the question itself. But I would like your attention to add a few remarks about my friend de Paepe’s speech.
I don't expect anything from parliamentarism precisely because I am a member of a parliament, because I've seen the whole comedy. All those who are members of a parliament, I ask starting with our chairman, Cunninghame Graham, member of the English parliament, whether they expect something, yes or no, from parliamentarism? The word “parliament” is composed of two words which, according to a witty writer, fully describe the character of the thing, i.e. "parle" (speaks) and "ment" (lies). The parliaments are therefore assemblies in which one speaks and lies.[1] Who can describe parliaments in a shorter and more specific manner? Parliaments are talking shops and that is not just the fault of the people, but of the system itself. We have seen it here.
Our congress is made up of the select; no parliament in the whole world can compare itself to this Parliament here, and yet, I ask you whether it has not made exactly the same mistakes? We have talked a lot, even too much, and in the end you are forced to vote and adopt resolutions which have been prepared beforehand without having the time or opportunity to seriously discuss them. So the fault is in the system. But let's suppose for a moment that we had triumphed all along the line, let's assume that we have labour legislation as we wish: tell me, do you believe that the general situation would change greatly in favour of the workers? If asked for my opinion, I will frankly say that the worst trick the governments could play on us would be to accept your proposals, because for twenty to twenty-five years they would have killed any revolutionary socialist movement among the workers. Fortunately, governments are blind and do not understand the situation. But for me the greatest danger of the eight-hour working day consists in this: for the workers the introduction of it will in any case be a tremendous disappointment; for the workers can do what they want, they can introduce the eight-hour working day, they can emigrate, they can abstain from marriage and practice New Malthusianism — not produce any children at all — capital will always find a way to protect itself against wage increases it would have to bear, and it will not let its prey slip away; they can only be snatched away by force. As long as capitalist production persists, wages will not rise above what is necessary to maintain labour power. The capitalists, who are masters of the governments, will grant the eight-hour working day when they see that this is the only way for them to continue; and as long as they remain masters, the workers will remain slaves. The most that the workers will achieve will be that the slave chains are wrapped in velvet or silk; the chains —98— will still be chains. Then the workers will see that the evil does not consist in the working hours and not in wages, otherwise the effects would have disappeared with the causes, but that the cause of the evil is the imperfect and totally unjust distribution of the products of labour. Well, without suppressing this cause, one will never suppress misery and slavery.
Caroll Wright, Secretary of the American Statistical Bureau, fully understood this when he said:
“One of the most important questions that require a solution is the question of distributing the ever increasing products of labour among the producers in a proportionate and fair manner, for imperfect distribution and not overproduction is the great evil from which the social body suffers. Capital now takes the lion‘s share, and therefore the workers have been compelled to organize themselves and threaten to agitate against capitalism. The conflict between capital and labour can only be resolved by abolishing the wage system and replacing it with cooperative labour.”
Here is the evil and here is the remedy. If we, who are hard-headed socialists, are to champion labour legislation, then one must see that this is a concession on our part; therefore we share the opinion of the English inspector Saunders,, that steps to reform society cannot be taken with any success unless the working day is limited in advance and the legal limits are strictly observed. We will use this shortening of the working day as a lever, so that the proletarian giant, who has been thrown to the ground and cannot protect himself against the kicks of his tyrants, can get up from his feet and make use of his strength. That is the only reason why I can imagine that a staunch socialist would make an effort to impose such a thesis — it seems to me that the ultimatum of the working class to the ruling class cannot be expressed more succinctly and definitely than in the four demands of the English:
Eight hours to work, eight hours to play,
Eight hours to sleep and eight shillings a day.
— demands he knows in advance will not make a fundamental improvement. There is a parable in the Gospel that always comes to mind when discussing labour legislation: “No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.” Well, doesn't that hit the nail on the head for the question we are discussing? Capitalism, that is, the system by which the worker is stopped from owning the product and the means of his labour — capitalism is our enemy, and as Cato always emphasized, “Carthaginem esse delendam” (Carthage must be destroyed) we would have to say always and everywhere: Capitalism must be destroyed!
If we want an eight-hour working day, it is only a means, never an end. A railroad train cannot always run, it sometimes has to stop to take on water; the less it stops on the way, the better, and we look for a way to make it stop as little as possible. For us, the eight-hour working day is a station where we spend a little time to refresh ourselves to start the fight again with more strength and better armed. The eight-hour working day is nothing but a weapon of war and it is just a provisional measure. The workers need to know that they have not finished the fight when they have passed a Normal Working Day Act, yes, that then the real fight is just beginning.
—99— It is not necessary to be a socialist to march with us towards this goal, and our Socialist Congress is very humble, too humble even, if it only makes this demand. That is why, when we ask for such legislation, it is necessary to add: such legislation on socialist soil[d] is like a plant planted in a swamp. We must say: personal property is the greatest evil; without its destruction we will not get the healing we long for. If I am offered a place in a ministry — I hope not, and I am not afraid that they will — then I will set a single condition, namely: do we intend to attack personal property? If the reply was: ‘yes’, I would accept reluctantly, but dutifully; if the reply was: ‘no’, I would say: ‘Get thee behind me, Satan, you want to seduce me!’
Plato was asked to propose model institutions, laws for a Greek city. The philosopher replied: ‘Gladly, but will there be property owners among us?’ ‘Without a doubt,’ he was answered, ‘each of us will own a field and will be able to fence it in with walls’. — ‚Then I have nothing more to say to you; build your city, others will level it to the ground and you will not be able to defend yourselves‘. — This answer of the philosopher says it all. If personal property remains the basis of our society, then poverty, slavery, misery with all their consequences remain for the workers. The fourth estate, which is nothing and must become all, can have its rights and its place in no other way than by destroying the private form of property, which has outlived itself. Any proposal for international labour legislation will be received with sympathy, but we always reply that it is not enough, it is only a first step; ceterum censeo — Furthermore I believe: private property must be destroyed.
We accept Bebel’s resolution, but only under these two conditions: that a minimum wage is added to the fixed maximum working day ; and that the preamble states that labour legislation is only a temporary measure, and that the lot of the workers can never be improved if we do not destroy the framework of personal property as the basis of society; and that our goal is and remains: the conversion of private property into social property. (Applause.)
Citizen Liebknecht declares himself in full agreement with the German delegates that he does not want to enter into a discussion about the usefulness of parliamentarism . We know, he says, what we think of parliamentarism, but our silence must not lead to the conclusion that we are in agreement with the absolute rejection of it which Domela Nieuwenhuis has just uttered. Our position on parliamentarianism has been sharply defined at our congresses, and I refer simply to the related discussions.
As for the consequences of labour legislation, the speaker is convinced that the implementation of protective laws, far from stopping the workers’ movement, will favour it and do much to give it a powerful boost.
(Applause and signs of approval from the German delegates.)
The Bureau then communicates the sums collected for the casualties of St. Etienne and for a wreath to be laid on the “Wall of the Fédérés” (the Communards). It then asks the delegates of the weavers from the various countries to assemble after the sitting with the aim of creating an international agreement.
The meeting will be closed at 1 pm and will be excluded again at 1½. According to the decision of the Congress, the assembly will then proceed to the vote on the resolutions .
1. The pun is French - Parliament is in French: parlement.
a. Emma Ihrer (1857-1911) had founded the Verein zur Wahrung der Interessen der Arbeiterinnen ("Society for the Protection of Women Workers' Interests") in 1885 with a group of friends including Gertrude Guillaume-Schack, also present at the Congress. The Society provided medical and legal help, and soon had branches across Germany, but was closed by the police in 1886. Gera Reuss (now usually Reuss Gera) was a principate in Thuringia, in Eastern Germany.
b. The French manuscript has "exemples de la tutelle unique du gouvernement". The German translation has "befreit von der Vormundschaft der Regierung". I have assumed that 'befreit' is a typo for 'beispiel', example.
c. Chorus from an old comic song, König Krok, by Joseph Victor Scheffel, popularly used as a response to any statement felt to be exaggeratedly revolutionary.
d. This seems to be a mistake by the German editor; Nieuwenhuis’ French original, from which this was translated to German, has on capitalist soil, which makes more sense.