The chairman is citizen Deville.
In accordance with the resolution passed earlier,[b] the first action should be the reading out of the resolutions tabled and where possible merged by the Bureau, followed by voting on the same. Any eventual observations, clarifications, explanations, additions which anyone may wish to make should be discussed after the vote.
Various anarchists thought that this practice was not democratic, that it meant a violation of the Congress, etc. So they systematically kicked up a racket as soon as anyone tried to read out the resolutions or take a vote.
The chairman remarks that certain personalities behave quite differently at the Possibilist congress than they do here. The great, even excessive, tolerance, which one has shown these gentlemen up to now has evidently made them — shameless. The racket increased when one of the French delegates firmly declared that the main anarchist loudmouths, first and foremost the Italian Merlino, —119— had behaved calmly at the Possibilist congress, so that one was entitled to assume that they wanted to disrupt the socialist Congress before it achieved any results. This statement was confirmed not only by other delegates, but also by the tenacity with which the anarchists kept raising a new racket as soon as calm returned and a vote seemed possible. Apparently there was a system in this behaviour, and it gave the impression that the Congress was faced with collusion.
Citizen Vaillant demands that each delegate remain in his place so that the troublemakers can be recognized. One should keep calm, otherwise one agent might be enough to throw the whole congress into confusion.
When all the calls by the President to come to order, when the unequivocally manifested indignation of the Congress proved ineffective at putting an end to this anarchic nonsense, the Congress had to apply its house rules. The main troublemakers, Merlino, and two of his friends, were taken out of the hall, and the delegates posted at the door were instructed to allow only those with cards to enter the meeting room.[c]
Citizen Guillaume-Schack protested against the exclusion of the troublemakers and left the Congress with seven Englishmen and Italians.[d]
The fourth question, “Abolition of standing armies, etc.” is then put to the vote first. The resolution submitted to the Congress was introduced by Vaillant and amended and changed by various resolutions submitted by the German and French sides. It reads:
The Paris International Workers’ Congress:
Considering:[e]
The Congress rejects with indignation the war plans pursued by governments desperately struggling for their existence;
Regards peace as the first and indispensable condition of any emancipation of the worker;
And together with the abolition of standing armies, demands the general arming of the people according to the following principles:
The national army, the armed nation, consists of all citizens fit for active service; they are organized in districts in such a way that every town, district, and area has a battalion or more — depending on the size of the population — made up of citizens who know each other and who, if need be, can in 24 hours be assembled, armed and ready to march. Everyone has his rifle and equipment at home, as in Switzerland, to defend public freedoms and national security.
The Congress further declares that war, the sad product of present economic conditions, will only disappear when the capitalist mode of production has given way to the emancipation of labour and the international triumph of socialism.
The above resolution was adopted unanimously.[f] 7 of those attending abstained from voting, but they were recognized as anarchists.[g]
The resolution on the third question is then put to the vote. It reads:
The international workers’ congress in Paris calls on the workers’ organizations and socialist parties of all countries to set to work immediately and to use all means (meetings, press, petitions, demonstrations, etc.) to influence their governments and to induce them:
In all countries in which there are socialists in the municipal, cantonal or regional assembly, they should introduce the resolutions of the Paris Congress in the form of motions in municipal councils, in the form of legislative proposals in parliaments.
—121— In all elections, whether as representatives of the whole people or as representatives of a community, socialist candidates must recognize and represent these resolutions as their program.
An executive commission is to be appointed, entrusted with the implementation of those resolutions of the Paris Congress which affect the international labour protection legislation planned by the Swiss government.
This commission, made up of five members, is entrusted with laying before the Berne Conference the principles which the organized workers and socialist parties of Europe and America at their congress in Paris from 14-20th July have determined to be absolutely necessary for labour protection legislation.
This commission is also given a mandate to convene the next international workers’ congress, which is to take place in a location in Switzerland or Belgium to be determined later.
A weekly paper with the title: “The eight-hour working day” will be published, with the participation of the socialist parties represented at the international congress in Paris. This is intended to collate all the news relating to the various national movements for legislative shortening of the working day.
At the request of the Dutch, the resolution is voted on by nationality. 15 nations are in favour of the resolution, 3 abstain from voting, 2 are not present. The following voted for the resolution: Germany, France (with 4 abstentions), Hungary, England,[h] Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden (with 1 abstention), Romania, Poland, Russia (the latter two countries with reservations because of the exceptional situation in which they found themselves), North America (with 1 abstention from 3 delegates), Argentina. The Norwegian and Italian delegates were absent. Belgium, Holland and Austria abstained from voting.[i]
A supplement to the resolution:
the Bureau of the international congress is hereby instructed to select the aforementioned executive commission,
is adopted unanimously.
The Congress then proceeded to vote on the most important of the resolutions relating to labor protection legislation. It arose from a merger of proposals from Bebel and Guesde, and was modified in particular points by Morris, Keir Hardie, Scherrer, etc.
The resolution reads:
The Paris International Workers’ Congress:
In the conviction that the emancipation of labour and humanity can only proceed from the proletariat organized internationally as a class which gains political power in order to set in motion the expropriation of capitalism and the social seizure of the means of production:[j]
Considering:
the congress decides:
Effective labour protection legislation is absolutely necessary in all countries ruled by the capitalist mode of production.
As a basis for this legislation, the Congress demands:
Congress declares that all these measures necessary for the recovery of social conditions are to be made the subject of international laws and treaties, and calls on the proletarians of all countries to influence their governments in this way. Once such laws and treaties have been obtained, their application and enforcement should be monitored in order to implement them more thoroughly.
Congress further declares that it is the duty of the workers to accept women workers into their ranks with equal rights, and as a matter of principle demands equal wages for equal work for workers of both sexes and regardless of nationality.
In order to achieve the complete emancipation of the proletariat, Congress considers it absolutely necessary that the workers everywhere organize themselves and consequently demands the unrestricted, total right to free association and combination.[m]
—123— Citizen Lavigne, on behalf of the National Association of French Chambres Syndicales and Corporate Groups, next proposes a major demonstration to help implement the resolutions of the Congress. The motion is:
The Congress resolves:
A great international rally is to be organized for a specified date, in such a way that at the same time in all countries and in all cities on a previously agreed day the workers demand of the public authorities that the working day be fixed at eight hours and carry out the other resolutions of the International Congress of Paris.
Given the fact that such a rally has already been fixed for the first of May 1890 by the American Federation of Labor at its December 1888 Congress held in St. Louis, this date will be adopted for the international rally.
The workers of the various nations will have to implement the rally in the manner prescribed for them by the conditions in their country.
At the request of the Belgians, votes are taken by nationality. All nationalities vote for the resolution with the exception of the Belgians and Russians, the former of whom will later justify their vote, and the latter only abstain because it is impossible to demonstrate in Russia.
The following resolution is now adopted:
In conformance with the resolution of the International Workers’ Congress in its 2nd session on July 20th, the permanent bureau has designated Switzerland as the seat of the executive committees; it has instructed the delegates of this country to form a commission of 5 members and to set it up in the same city where the organ “The eight-hour working day” is published.
A discussion now takes place in which individual delegates attempt to justify their votes or to bring about new additions and improvements to the resolutions.
Citizen Volders protests on behalf of the Belgians against the bureau's procedure for taking votes before any discussion. It gives him the impression that they wanted to stifle the debates. He had thought it impossible right up to the end that one would vote first and then discuss. Although the Belgians are in principle in favour of the resolutions tabled, they abstained from voting to protest against the bureau’s procedure. Instead of the congress being able to discuss freely, dogmas were laid out and put to a vote. He hopes that the next international congress will be more democratic.
Citizen Deville replies that the bureau had no need to reply to Volders, since it was not acting on its own authority, but only carrying out the decisions and orders made by the congress.
—124— Citizen Körner protests against inadequate management by the bureau. The resolutions should have been presented in print before the vote, so that everyone knew exactly what they were voting for. He personally abstained from voting because he could not understand the resolutions that had been read out.
Citizen Liebknecht finds it superfluous to defend the bureau. Those who were there during the negotiations also saw the difficulties in management. As to voting before discussion, it was by no means impractical, as had been asserted, since it concerned questions on which every delegate had long been clear. He is convinced that not a single person came to the congress to be instructed on the questions on the agenda; everyone already brought a settled program with them. Voting before discussion became a necessity in view of the time that had passed, and if one wanted to ensure that the congress did not break up without a conclusion. The discussions would have dragged on indefinitely with any other method. If one enters into discussions after the vote, this can only be done for the purpose of giving the opportunity to justify dissenting votes.
As far as the management of the Congress is concerned, one must not forget the immense difficulties which the bureau had to contend with because of the different languages alone. The difficulties associated with running a national party congress are well known; for an international congress with three official languages these are at least tripled.
Certainly it would have been good if the resolutions could have been submitted in print, but one should bear in mind that the socialists here have neither an organ nor a printer and that, despite all efforts, it was impossible to find a printer prepared to do the work for us immediately.
The American delegate Bush next introduces another resolution, which reads as follows:
Considering that the reports of the delegates of all countries at this congress have shown that the simple economic organization of laboiur (trades unions and similar organizations) is insufficient for the emancipation of the working class, while agitation for reduction of the working day, for restriction of female and child labour, and for workers protection laws, has been shown to be a means of awakening the class consciousness of the workers, which is a necessary precondition for the self-emancipation of the working class;
Considering that possession of political power allows the ruling class to maintain its system of exploitation based on private entrepreneurs and the capitalist mode of production;
Considering that by means of political power oversight of industry by the state and oversight of the state by the people are prevented;
the international congress of Paris decides:
This resolution is passed with only one vote against.
Citizen Werner (Berlin) declares that it is against democratic principles to vote without prior discussion. After the Congress had lost three days in formalities, there was now no more time to deal in detail with the issues on the agenda, and the vote had been pushed through at full speed.
Citizen Dumortier, representative of the mechanical engineers of Lyon, declares that he is against the decision of the Congress because he cannot approve the conference in Bern, which had been convened by a bourgeois government.
The four French delegates, who abstained from voting on the resolution on the third question, declare that by abstaining they wanted to avoid the appearance of having confidence in any government.
The two Spanish delegates, Mesa and Iglesias, and a Hungarian delegate, request through a motion that the Congress bureau appoint a Central Committee representing the various countries, which would maintain international understanding between the individual workers’ organizations and parties.
Citizen Vaillant declares that, given the laws of many countries, it is impossible to accept this motion, and the motion is consequently withdrawn.
Citizen Kranz, delegate of the Jewish socialist workers’ association in London, requests, as an addition to the Bebel-Guesde resolution, the abolition of intermediate entrepreneurs (factors, "sweating" in the "sweating system"). The speaker has just had the opportunity in London to learn about the system and its deplorable consequences for the workers.
The addition was adopted unanimously by the Bureau and by Congress (ie. to be included in the resolution on the first and second questions.)
Citizen Seitz (Berlin) protests against the attacks on the bureau. He fully understands the great difficulties that it has to contend with. It is true that it was rushed at the end, but that was dictated by the situation. Everyone was clear about the issues on the agenda and they also know that the bureau can be completely trusted.
Citizen Liebknecht gives thanks for the explanation, although it was not necessary, since the bureau does not need to defend itself.
Citizen Chretien (Marseilles) declares that he voted with full conviction, knowing that the measures required will in fact improve the situation of the workers. A detailed discussion would certainly have been desirable, but given the short time it had, the bureau acted well in holding the vote first.
Citizen Lenz, on behalf of the waiters and lemonadiers, requests an addition to the Bebel-Guesde resolution, calling for the abolition of private employment agencies.
—126— The motion was adopted unanimously. (ie. to be included in the resolution on the first and second questions.)
Citizen Tressaud (Marseille) states that the demonstration of May 1, 1890 will probably have no effect. It must therefore be supported by a general strike (grêve générale ). The congress should, however, “resolve that the general strike is the beginning of the social revolution.”
The speaker tables a motion to that effect, which is met with ironic interjections.
Citizen Liebknecht speaks briefly against the motion. He explains that a general strike is an impossibility, since it presupposes a strong and uniform organization of the workers such as does not exist at the moment and cannot exist at all in bourgeois society. The English workers were excellently organized in the late thirties and early forties, far better than the French are now, and yet their great strikes and other attempts at a general cessation of work failed. But once the workers have a strong enough organization to be able to carry out a general strike, they will hopefully not be satisfied with one, but will make better use of their organization. Then they will rule the world. And to stop work then would be a groundless folly.
Citizen Tressaud notes that his motion should only apply to those countries where it would be possible to achieve something through a general strike.
Two delegates second his motion.
A motion to close the debate on this motion is introduced; this is opposed by several delegates, among others from Dormon (French province), who think that representatives from the province have said little so far and that it is important for them to show that faced with such important questions they do not have an anarchist or an unclear standpoint, but the correct socialist one.
The conclusion of the debate on the general strike is approved, and Tressaud’s motion rejected by a very large majority.
Two motions for a general amnesty for all persons convicted of political offenses and sentenced in connection with the workers’ movement come to a vote.
Citizen Liebknecht declares that in view of the struggle in which the German Social Democrats are involved with the government, it would be cowardice on their part to vote for a plea for mercy.
The motion for amnesty or for agitation for amnesty is accepted. The German delegates abstain from voting.
Citizen Faure has been instructed by 7 English and 1 Italian delegates to protest against the expulsion of Merlino and his friends.
A French delegate declares the protest to be well founded; he asks the congress to acknowledge this by a vote and then return to the agenda.
Citizen Palmgreen does not want to protest, he merely states that irregularities have occurred, but these were natural and inevitable; they only show that the congress was socialist and not parliamentary. The bureau has done its duty, it was overloaded with work and could not possibly keep more order than it did. Surely it could not put police in place to provide exhaustive oversight of discipline.
—127— He is satisfied that the Congress was not too parliamentary. The congress served its purpose, we made contact with one another and saw that workers everywhere are striving for the same goal.
Citizen Besset declares that he had a mandate to support the demonstration and the general strike. Since the Congress rejected the latter, he withdraws.
Citizen Vollmar informs Congress that the laying of the wreaths on the graves of the Communards, as well as those of Börne and Heine, will take place on Sunday morning at 10 o'clock.
Citizen Lenz stated that all delegates agreed on the goal to be achieved: the emancipation of humanity. But the question now arises how one can achieve it? For his part, he is convinced only through a social revolution.
The desire for the end of the congress is generally noticeable.
Citizen Cipriani declares on behalf of his Italian fellow delegates that they were not absent from the congress, but only attended it as spectators, since their mandate to bring about a union of the two congresses could not be fulfilled.
Chairman Deville announces that the Germans, Americans and British have submitted a motion to close the Congress because it has concluded its agenda.
The proposal is accepted by a large majority.
Chairman Deville “I declare the Congress, which has now concluded its agenda, closed. The Congress has closed! Vive la Révolution sociale!”
The call comes from the German side: Three cheers for social democracy! Three cheers for international social democracy! And for several minutes the roaring cries in French and German mingle: vive la République sociale! Vive la Révolution sociale! The German delegates start singing the workers’ Marseillaise and the French sing along. They shake hands enthusiastically.
“Auf wiedersehen!” “Au revoir!”
The final session ended at 8:30 in the evening.
a. There are no surviving French manuscript notes for this session. Instead, the German editors made use of proceedings printed shortly after the event by the Berliner Volksblatt (31st July 1889, Issue 176, page 2-3). Much of this is repeated verbatim in the Proceedings, but some parts are lightly edited and some omitted. The texts of the resolutions themselves are not taken from the Volksblatt, and are generally close to those given in the French versions printed with the Congress attendance lists.
b. On Thursday. The decision was a consequence of having decided to hear the reports from the smaller nations, which left no time for full discussion of the main resolutions. It appears that many delegates were unhappy with, or perhaps unaware of this decision, which was proposed by the Bureau but voted for by Congress.
c. The anarchist side of this story is summarized by Max Nettlau in Geschicte der Anarchie, Vol. 1, Die Erste Blütezeit der Anarchie: 1886-1894, p.424 ff: Merlino attempted to introduce a point of order disallowing voting on resolutions before they had been discussed. This was refused. Vaillant instructed delegates to remain in their place, and added an ambiguous comment (as given in the proceedings above) to the effect that it only took one bad actor to destroy the conference. A group of Swiss-German delegates then physically held down Guillaume-Schack and Nettlau as they had heard them talking in German in spite of being members of the English group, and so suspected them of being spies. Eleanor Marx-Aveling compounded the problem by mistranslating Vaillant's statement into English as "Vaillant said that the interruptor was a police spy". Merlino protested vociferously and was forced out; a group of the English — the only ones to have heard the accusation, and assuming it had come from Vaillant — then walked out in protest. Max Nettlau was among them (he was then Socialist League representative for Norwich, signing himself as Netlow).
d. Gertrude Guillaume-Schack was a colleague of Emma Ihrer who was exiled due to her activity in the woman's movement and moved to London where she joined the Socialist League. Her motion (in French) read:
The undersigned delegates, present at the session of the 20th July at the Marxist Congress, protest against the decision taken by the Bureau to stifle discussion, and against the brutality used to carry out its manoeuvres [agissements].
They declare that they have nothing further to do in such a place, and withdraw.
G. Guillaume-Schack East London Branch S.L.
James Tochatti, Hammersmith Radical Club, London
Mrs. Louisa Tochatti, Yarmouth B. S.L.
John Ritson, Manchester Branch, Socialist League
F. Charles, North London Branch, Socialist League
T. Cooper, Mitcham Branch, Socialist League
F. Netlow, Norwich Branch Socialist League
Ettore Molinari, Italian delegate.Nota Bene :- we request translation into German and English.
e. This resolution was proposed by Vaillant, and was on a topic of particular concern to the Blanquists. The text is clearly a translation from the resolution distributed in the partial French congress proceedings with very minor changes. The resolution as printed in the Berliner Volksblatt - presumably Vaillant's original before the Bureau had merged its changes - is shorter and less elaborate than this version, though the substantive parts are the same apart from the last clause, which was added.
f. The default voting method for the congress was by head count, unless any country specifically requested a vote by country. The vote on this motion was, therefore, almost unanimous.
g. The Berliner Volksblatt says "At the request of Volders the abstentions were counted, and came to 7", with no mention of who they were.
h. Since the Socialist League members had walked out, the English delegates still voting were (potentially) Keir Hardie, Cunninghame Graham, Dard, Draken, Halliday, Edward Aveling, K. Donald, Gibry, Edward Carpenter. Eleanor Marx-Aveling appears not to have been registered as a delegate.
i. The Dutch and Belgian delegates abstained on all the votes in protest at not being allowed to debate or even examine the final motions before voting (“Voting took place under protest from our side, that no discussion was possible concerning resolutions that we had barely been able to see. We therefore abstained from voting.” Rapport der Afgevaardigen naar de Internationale Kongressen van arbeiders, gehonden te Parijs van 14-21 Juli 1889, p. 7-8)i. For the Belgians, see Volders similar statement after the votes. 4 of the French and 1 of the Americans abstained from the main votes, the French from antipathy to the idea of making requests to governments (the anarchist argument). The 12 Italian delegates were not counted (Cipriani explained later that since their mandate depended on the merger of the two Congresses, which had not happened, the Italians had agreed that they had no longer had a mandate to vote at all). The 3 Norwegians were also not counted for the votes, but the reason is not known.
j. This preamble was not present in the original submitted by Bebel but was added following a separate series of motions and votes, documented in the Berliner Volksblatt.
The first version of the preamble was written by Guesde and Morris and proposed by Guesde (Morris was not present for the votes). This was:
Inasmuch as the International Workers’ Congress in Paris bases itself on the principle that the liberation of the worker and of humanity can only be achieved as an international act of the proletariat with the goal of socializing the means of production, the Congress demands from todays states:
The motion to add this preamble was accepted by a majority of nationalities, but with the Germans, Switzerland, and Argentina voting against, Belgium and Holland abstaining, and Norway and Italy again absent.
The preamble finally printed in the proceedings (and in the French printed resolutions) is not quite the same as that in Guesde's motion, inserting the requirement that the act of socializing the means of production depends on the prior winning of political power.
k. It is hard to believe that
this is not a printing error. This is the main clause in the main resolution of
a Congress centred on the eight hour day, but it appears to limit the demand to
young people only (‘jugendliche Arbeiter’). Both the French and Dutch printed resolutions say instead ‘adult workers’.
The Berliner Volksblatt says simply:
‘a. An 8 hour normal working day’.
The Dutch Proceedings have:
‘a. Fixing of the working day to a maximum of eight hours for adults.’
For comparison, the corresponding clause in the resolution of the Possibilist
congress was:
1. Maximum working day of eight hours, to be fixed by international law.
However, it is just possible that the change was deliberate, since the German Socialist Party was campaigning for a 10, not 8, hour day in Germany in 1890.
l. This clause is missing in the French printed resolutions. It is an addition requested by Lenz, representing waiters.
m. Like the preamble, these final two clauses on equal pay and the right to organize were added following separate motions, this time proposed by Bebel. The vote in favour was unanimous.
For the vote on the motion as a whole, this time it was the Belgians who requested voting by nationality. Votes were similar to those on the abolition of standing armies, except that this time Argentina voted in favour, giving 14 nationalities for (with 4 abstentions among the French), Belgium and Holland abstaining, and Italy and Norway not counted.