Citizen Daumas, city councilor of Paris, chairs the meeting. He communicates to the assembly the dispatches, letters and addresses of support relating to the congress.
Citizen Morris gives an overview of the socialist movement in England, [a] without, however, dwelling on the situation of the working class there, which, as elsewhere, is the slave of private capital. There has been talk of socialism in England for barely 6 years, even if something of the Chartist movement was still alive, as well as —40— something of Owen’s communism. The influence of continental socialism had naturally made itself felt, but the bourgeoisie, made arrogant by its successes in trade, ignored the situation of the proletariat or wanted to ignore it. The great multitude considered the ultimate goal to be striven for to be the realization of a system of hypocritical formulae which dominated all politics.
Economic development has now transformed this situation: socialism has become a hope for the proletariat, a terror for the bourgeoisie. And that is not all. Some bourgeois declare themselves in favour of socialism as long as they are not forced to recognize the principle of the class struggle. The horrifying form in which poverty emerges in England seems to have woken up a bit of a drowsy conscience in these people, and they therefore support and proclaim all kinds of reform. So the state has encouraged emigration in order to free the country from large numbers of proletarians; so a timid attempt has been made to revive peasant property and to stimulate small-scale rural industry; efforts have been made to obtain labour insurance à la Bismarck and a new, cheaper form of the productive cooperative. Numerous aids are proposed from pure simple philanthropism down to Malthusianism and abortion by the bourgeois who are aware of what a volcano our society has become.
Until recently the socialist movement remained almost exclusively in the realm of thought, supported almost entirely by members of the educated proletariat. Today the tide has turned, as economic developments have prepared the minds of the workers sufficiently to pick up and accept the socialist doctrines. The workers have recognized the class struggle as such; they have understood that the amount of misery in their lives depends on the role they play in letting themselves adapt to the mechanism of the capitalist mode of production. They are brought by an irresistible drive to want to transform society from the ground up.
This awakening is due in part to the propaganda which a group of staunch socialists carried out on street corners. Only three to four years ago our speakers were hissed and hooted in certain places by the workers themselves; today they find an attentive audience everywhere, yes, they are even applauded. In the past, the radical London clubs did not deign to listen to socialists; today the socialists hardly find any opposition there. Better still: political life in the true sense of the word (understand that the speaker does not mean the futile arguments — wire-pulling — of the electoral period) is expressed in these clubs solely through the movement of those who declare themselves socialists. In a word, socialism affects political parties in such a way that Minister Harcourt could exclaim: "We are all socialists!" The most serious obstacle that the socialists have faced is is to be found in the indifference of the workers employed in the established industries. Since England was the first of all countries to succeed in fully adopting large-scale industry, so necessarily the workers of the industrial centres have had for generations to give themselves over completely to the utmost dependence. They have grown accustomed to seeing themselves as just a part of the factory’s machinery. For them, the factory owner is a "paymaster" with whom they sometimes have a dispute, but whom they regard as indispensable for their existence.
On the other hand, the socialist movement in England is favoured by the —41— fact that there is a commonality of feelings with the peasant, i.e. between the farm worker and the urban worker, which is unthinkable in France, and just as little elsewhere on the continent — at least not nearly to the same extent. The farm labourer in England is the slave of the tenant farmer and therefore by no means conservative, even if it often happens that he is compelled to vote for a Conservative; he has his own opinion and a keen inclination to break his chains.
The development of the parties has served the cause of socialism. The Irish question alone — which the English socialists have been very occupied with — has confused all the old parties. The workers, until now used to blindly entrusting themselves to Parliament, have lost their confidence in it. It must be stated that the new group of Socialist Radicals ̇— represented in the press by the “Star” — has little influence in Parliament and that they will no longer have any influence on the day when the Irish question is resolved or eliminated.
We — that is, the Socialist League on whose behalf I speak — we, I say, can congratulate ourselves on this situation, for we definitely believe that workers are wasting their time and effort when they strive to get their own representatives into parliament. We are therefore far from regretting the poor results that were achieved with the aforementioned attempts. On the other hand, the County Councils , which have recently been introduced in the large cities and especially in London, very much against the intentions of the Tories, show a strong tendency towards socialism. One may hope that one day they will be a rallying point for the people who oppose centralist and bureaucratic parliamentary power; because in England this parliamentary power is — and there it can only be — reactionary, because it is under the unbreakable spell of being a defense committee for the most sacred right of private property that the socialists are attacking. This committee, called Parliament, has not been sorry to include a few members of the exploited class in its midst, whose presence has a twofold end: to serve as a safety valve for the discontent of the people, and as a signal of the way the workers’ complaints are going, but also to show the limits within which bourgeois hypocrisy can allow itself to move freely.
All in all, the state of the movement in England is very encouraging. Public opinion seeks with ever greater eagerness to find out where the truth lies, and even if the organization of the party may still be inadequate, one can be sure that it will make headway by itself and in an irresistible way.
We should not forget to mention that socialism is spreading more and more in Australia , not in the sense that we see it unfolding in America , but rather in a way similar to the English movement. Incidentally, the very fact that socialism first appeared in England as a movement of thought justifies the hope that its progress will not stall. The idealism, which follows from this, is an indispensable element of every movement that wants to impose itself. It is undoubtedly dangerous to base our hopes on economic fatalism, on the continual decay of the bourgeois element. The logical development of production and society necessarily obliges us to take these facts into consideration; however, historical changes in conditions can interrupt the course of that development and grant the supremacy of the bourgeoisie a further period of life. England may possibly still enjoy a period of great flourishing of trade; —42— as a result of the incentive which this flourishing must give to inventions and the improvement of mechanics, the workers will have an even smaller share in the so-called national wealth than even in the present industrial period.
Whatever happens, we will not stop being socialists. Indeed, we can become better fed slaves, parasites in a mosre pleasant situation — but should we be satisfied with that? No! The movement in the realm of thought, which must continue to take place, will not allow us to be satisfied with a state that is not the full and complete realization of our ideal. We know that we have to demand complete equality of living conditions for all people, and that this is a very realizable ideal. We will never forget the hard lesson learned; we will know how to remember that whatever the fate of some individuals may be, the "dregs", albeit with improvements, always remains the “dregs” of which John Bright spoke with such complete complacency — and that it will remain so until all our demands are satisfied. The workers, even the best of them, do they not always depend on their paymasters? And, if we get to the bottom of things, on the master of their masters, on the international market? The English worker will tenaciously pursue the demand for his full rights, and he will will not halt on the way, we know that, until he has won them completely. In all of this, we acknowledge that the socialist party will be threatened with a period of disappointment if it degenerates into a purely political party. In which case it becomes the plaything of a handful of adventurers and vote-chasers who have nothing in mind but their own interests. To this end they will nourish the hopes of the proletariat and betray them by lying agitation in favor of a few palliatives, which a bourgeois parliament will not fail to approve, since such a parliament knows very well that these palliatives, should they really be carried out, will not give the masses of the people more than the freedom to vote and - to die of hunger.
One must say two things to the credit of the English socialists. First, notwithstanding certain differences of opinion, the English socialists — with few exceptions — are thoroughly international. They condemn jingoism — whatever form it takes — with the utmost energy. The word “nationality” only has a geographical meaning for them. The ”British Empire”, by no means an object of love and pride for them, is only seen as a force for disaster, rule based on injustice and violence, which is therefore repulsive to every decent person. Second, the English socialists, by virtue of their idealism, have established themselves as the special crew of the aesthetic side of socialism. Without accepting the utopias of Charles Fourier, they are, mostly without even knowing it, the heirs of his idea of attractive work (the demand to design work in socialist society in such a way that it ceases to be irksome and attracts the worker as a pleasure). This point is important. All socialists want everybody to have to work, but when they have achieved this goal they will subscribe to the proposition that work is less an unpleasant burden than a delightful obligation. Despite inevitable mistakes, the —43— socialist movement of England has rendered tangible and useful services to the whole of socialism by showing the workers the goal to be achieved: a beautiful and complete life.
The socialist movement of England has produced a noteworthy literature. In addition to several daily workers’ papers, one can see two socialist weeklies, “Justice”, organ of the “Social Democratic Federation” and “Commonweal”, organ of the “Socialist League”. The socialists also publish pamphlets, brochures, leaflets; however, more weighty works are not lacking either. A characteristic sign is that our novelists find it good to make their books up-to-date by adding a pinch of socialism. Socialism has become fashionable!
Socialism is thus a vigorous plant in England that is producing fresh sprouts, admittedly still young, so young that it has not yet produced flowers or fruit. (Loud applause.)
Doctor Adler, delegate of the Austrian Socialists, presented a report on the situation of the socialist movement in Austria, which was often interrupted by enthusiastic applause. In Austria, he says, there is a very viable party that works tirelessly and does not shy away from any difficulty. I bring here the fraternal greetings of thousands of workers living all over Austria. They intended to give me a formal mandate; but that was an impossibility. Freedom in Austria is a composite being which takes the middle ground between freedom in Russia and freedom in Germany. (Great amusement.) It is German in form, Russian in execution. Aside from France and England, Austria has perhaps the most liberal laws in all of Europe, so much so that it resembles a republic headed by a King instead of a President. Unfortunately, it is only in practice that one does not proceed according to what the law prescribes, but solely according to the wishes of the police commissioner concerned. The police commissioner is authorized to confiscate all legal freedoms, and one can well believe that he needs to use this right — and abuse it. This peculiar condition robs the workers' movement in Austria of all uniformity in progress, all security in decision-making and action. It is constantly exposed to all sorts of changes of fortune, blooming today, abandoned to destruction tomorrow, without the government having to resort to exceptional laws. The Exceptional Law against the Anarchists, published in 1884, has in no way changed the essence of the situation. What do the socialists care about whether they are condemned by professional judges or by jury? In accordance with this law, the police expelled more than 400 people from Vienna and Florisdorf in the first week after it was published. Those deported were mostly innocent people, members or committee members of trade unions. Of course, this law had to stifle the young workers’ movement, and it actually did so. But, strange to say, the Austrian government is equally incapable of being consistent with an act of justice as it is with an act of oppression; it is constantly swaying back and forth — we have the Despotism tempered by sloppiness (great amusement). The young movement used the latter to take a deep breath and to secure itself better. Let us emphasize that profound differences of opinion have emerged in the Workers’ Party,[b] especially with regard to the question: “Should the workers, armed with direct universal suffrage, constitute themselves as a political party or not?” Purely a question of principle! The workers in Austria have no voting rights and will not have them any time soon.
—44— Nonetheless, this question divided the Workers’ Party into two fractions, one of which consisted of so-called more radical, the other of so-called more moderate elements. The agreement only came about when certain previously influential personalities had disappeared. The movement had another difficulty to contend with, the hawker’s law by virtue of which anyone distributing a newspaper can be charged with offenses against the press law. (Stir in the hall.)[c] Finally, a third difficulty arises only too often from the clash of nationalities. Although the proletarians of different nationalities generally show a serious spirit of unity and sincerely sympathize with one another, the difficulties of propaganda are increased considerably by the differences of language. Let us add to all of this that the level of popular education is very low and has no tendency to rise. Ever since Ferdinand the Catholic, people in this country have raged with fire and sword against popular education. Austria is not only a Catholic country, it is also a backward country.
Despite all these difficulties, in the parts of the country where industry has taken root, there is a socialist party which the bourgeoisie fears.
It is a noteworthy fact that in Austria, in contrast to what the other countries are experiencing, a last remnant of the old feudal world still exists in a party which has played a decisive role in public life up to the present hour. Although this feudal society cannot avoid essential changes under the pressure of the new economic era, it nonetheless has interests opposed to those of the young bourgeoisie. Accordingly, one seeks to win over the workers now from this side, now from that side, the bourgeoisie in the form of a highly hypocritical political liberalism, the feudal nobility by means of labour legislation.
So Austria has labour legislation which — apart from England and Switzerland — would be the best in all of Europe if it did not exist almost exclusively on paper! In Austria the normal working day is 11 hours, night work for women and children is forbidden, etc. etc. There is also absolute freedom of the press. But note, the law allows exceptions, the authorities make exceptions, and their decisions can always be sure to get confirmation from the ministry. We should acknowledge, however, that in spite of these “legal illegalities” the labour law has improved the condition of the workers in big industry. It has drawn the proletariat's attention to the situation in which it finds itself, thereby helping to awaken the workers’ conscience. Furthermore, the factory inspection, however imperfect it may be, is not nearly as badly organized as it is in Germany. In order to make the inspection truly effective, one would have to start increasing the number of inspectors. The bourgeoisie refuses to recruit new inspectors on the pretext that the taxpayers’ money has been used up by the military. We currently only have 15 inspectors. What is more, the government has refused to give the inspectors an ordinary working-class man as assistant, universally recognized as helpful.
In spite of these shortcomings, the law has succeeded, let us repeat, in drawing public attention to conditions previously wholly ignored.
—45— What do the Austrian socialists think about labour legislation now? The goal, the achievement of which is crucial, is: improvement of the physical, intellectual and moral condition of the proletariat. Labour legislation is by no means capable of solving by itself the task which the workers' movement has to deal with; but it is a means without the application of which the proletariat will not be able to achieve its ultimate goal.
In the final hour, when the capitalist social order collapses — and it will collapse completely of its own accord without, so to speak, needing help — then the fate of the proletariat will be decided according to the degree of intellectual development it has achieved. We have less influence on the occurrence of this moment than we ourselves are accustomed to assume — far less than our enemies suspect. But one thing is in our power: to prepare for this moment. The future depends on this preparation. Will it find slaves broken by their chains, or men who are determined to be free? To be prepared — that is everything. That is the reason why we demand labour protection legislation everywhere, as indispensable for good social hygiene. (Continuous applause.)
Citizen Adler also announced that the Austrian party was exclusively represented at this congress. The so-called “Federation of Upper Austria and Salzburg”, which is represented at the Possibilist Congress, has the singular misfortune that it does not exist at all.
After this communication the Congress enters into a fairly long discussion on the question of whether or not it is necessary to continue reading the reports or not.
The Belgian representatives, supported by the American delegate Bush, propose that each speaker be given only 15 minutes to read out their reports.
Citizen Lafargue thinks that one should drop the reading of the reports, which will be published as such, and that one should begin the discussion of the questions on the agenda.
The English delegate Kitz thinks it useful to hear the miners' delegates in any case.
Citizen Dubucq suggests that each rapporteur be allowed 10 minutes; At the same time he would like a commission of 30 men to be elected with the task of combining all the individual reports into a single general report.
The German delegates are in favour of accepting the reports, and citizen Wedde opposes Lafargue’s proposal. The purpose of the congress is not only to study the question of workers' legislation, a question on which, moreover, all socialist parties are in principle united; — its aim is just as much to discuss closer connections between the proletarians of the various nations. And reading out the reports contributes significantly to this end. To this end, after having heard the reports of the so-called great nations, it will be necessary to likewise hear those of the smaller nations. Otherwise the Congress would sin against the spirit of fraternity and justice.
—46— Citizens Lafargue and Dubucq withdraw their motion and the congress unanimously decides for the reading of the reports, but done in such a way that, following the proposal of citizen Cesar de Paepe, each speaker can only be given 10 minutes. The Congress also accepts the Bureau’s proposal that it be entrusted with the drafting of definitive resolutions, for which each delegate is invited to assist the Bureau by submitting resolutions or observations relating to the questions on the agenda.
Citizen Volders, the delegate of the Socialist Workers’ Party of Belgium, has the floor to report on the socialist movement in Belgium.
The Belgian bourgeoisie is the worst of all because it has by far the most political power in its hands. It alone has the right to vote. Likewise, it not only reserves the land and all means of production for itself, but also the entire state power. It recently added an addendum to the electoral law that allows a handful of foremen and small traders to enter town councils. In addition, a qualifying examination is required for this. The socialist party in this country therefore has to contend incessantly with great difficulties, which inevitably exert their influence on the tactics which its members must adopt.
There is no labour legislation in Belgium. The way in which this important question was recently put on the agenda shows the bad faith of the bourgeoisie.
Popular education is far below the most modest of requirements.
Besides, the political situation of the country is made even more complicated by the economic one. Belgium is the country of large-scale industry par excellence, in fact an international industry that produces for the world market. The bourgeoisie uses the competition it gets from abroad and forges it into a weapon against the proletariat; it sows hatred between Belgian and foreign workers, and only the socialists fight this chauvinism.
The socialist movement in Belgium is comparatively young. Five or six years ago the only organized socialist sections were found in the industrial centers. Ghent alone had a solid general staff ( État-major ) of staunch socialists, including many Germans. It was they who tried in 1885 on the basis of a socialist program to unite all corporate organizations, all political and socialist study clubs, all consumer and productive cooperatives, mutual funds, etc. Then the Belgian Workers’ Party,[d] one of the best organized in all of Europe, was founded on a genuinely socialist basis. The German socialist workers made a particularly important contribution to the association, and they did so so zealously that the efforts of only a few years were successful in getting the movement underway. Those at the large corporate co-operatives that belong to the party and about which Anseele will give a special report, work entirely in a socialist spirit. The establishment of such corporate co-operatives has had a huge impact on public opinion in favor of the movement. Entire localities belong to the party, although the majority of these new members were initially completely uneducated about social issues. In the cities and industrial centres after a short time one could count around 100 political associations, socialists were elected to municipal and provincial councils. But the initial enthusiasm for the new party soon turned out to be a flash in the pan. We must admit that in Belgium it is impossible to count on the formation of political groups alone. At the slightest storm, these groups which have no other basis break up, as for example the Hainaut Political League proved, failing to last at all. On the other hand, those organisations held together through common economic interest do last.
—47— For example, the professional associations, which have the purpose of upholding certain tariffs and raising wages, as well as the corporate cooperatives, which form a solid basis for the unification of organizations and their members. Dissolution is more difficult because their members remain united for the maintenance of common property, which provides a valuable source of money besides; a significant percentage of their profits is used first of all for socialist propaganda, for the founding of newspapers, etc. The tactics of the Belgian party are characterized by their overall position. T1his all explains why the Belgian delegates insisted that an attempt should be made to merge the two congresses. The situation of their country has enforced systematic concessions on the socialists whenever the higher interest of the proletarian demands it. The Belgian party would not exist for a day longer if a strong, exclusive program were to be insisted on. Just the difference between Walloons and Flemings calls for tolerant tactics and a broad program.
Thus the Belgian party, although stringent on matters of principle, is open to persuasion when it is only a question of tactics; it is tolerant towards the workers, but at war with the bourgeoisie, rejecting all deals.
All comrades from other countries, whose situation is analogous to ours, could be inspired by our principles, which are solely aimed at bringing about victory in the open struggle for the emancipation of the international proletariat.
Everything that German social democracy demands with regard to labour laws, we demand too. (Applause.) —
Hybès, the Bohemian delegate, took the floor to report on the Czech movement. He does not want to speak in Czech, but in German, in order to save the congress the waste of time that would result from another translation.
Bohemia is represented for the first time at an international congress of the proletariat. Bohemia is a backwards country, in that it has not led an independent existence since the Reformation. Under the pretext of the Germanization and Catholicization of its population, all and every freedom has been stifled, all national rights have been suppressed. This situation was created by feudalism, which, under the pretext of serving the patriotic cause, in reality has served only its own cause and itself.
In spite of this, socialism has made its victorious entry into Bohemia; it has achieved this simultaneously with the industrial advances which have created a numerous proletariat exposed to every misery. The socialist doctrines brought to Bohemia from abroad, mostly presented through translations, were spread among the Czech proletariat. The language issue was one obstacle to propaganda, the relentless persecution was a second. In spite of so many obstacles opposed to the formation of an organization, the workers owe the initiative and the work of organization to themselves alone. Contrary to what has been seen in other countries, no man of the educated class has come to the proletariat to show them the path to be followed in their striving for emancipation. Similarly, no Czech lawyer has ever offered his hand to lead a socialist trial as a defender.
The speaker knows from his own experience the bitterness with which the government and the police persecute the socialists. He was himself persecuted, imprisoned, and accused of being a member of the “General Council” and of having founded “anarchist” groups everywhere, and was finally condemned, although the public prosecutor could not bring anything against him except his work for two foreign newspapers, one in New York, —48— Johann Most’s “Freiheit”, and the second an anarchist organ in Chicago, which had been published for a year. During the briefing for the trial, 90 hearings were held, and witnesses summoned from all parts of the kingdom of St. Wenceslas. Many other socialists had the same fate. In Bohemia the distribution of a newspaper is immediately punished with imprisonment or a fine; investigations into offenses for which there is a maximum of 2 or 3 days of detention often take months. The arrested are brought to the regional court in Prague, in chains. Although it is believed that the post office should work freely and independently and above all maintain the confidentiality of letters, a house search is invariably carried out immediately a few hours after a person has been sent a foreign newspaper. Anyone who is accused of being a member of a secret society is sentenced to 2 or 3 months in prison, the so-called “ringleaders” of these organizations to one year. In the eyes of the police, every worker who is somewhat more intelligent and more informed than his comrades is considered to be such a “ringleader”.
To give an idea of the arbitrariness and severity of the police, one fact suffices: of 340 people accused of socialism by a single public prosecutor, only 110 were acquitted! Not a single association has recently been approved in which Czech workers have organized themselves. The police organize a system of intimidation by which they prevent many workers from entering the movement.
In spite of all the humiliations, however, socialism has taken deep roots in Bohemia, so that it cannot possibly be eradicated today. Although there is still no intellectual base, which is indispensable, the movement is developing, and we have no doubt that it will one day triumph. (Loud applause.)
—48— After calm had returned, Keir Hardie, the representative of 56,000 organized Scottish miners, took the floor for his report, which had been commissioned by the M.P.s of the Parliamentary Socialist Labour Party of Great Britain.
The speaker recognizes the class struggle and strives for the elimination of capitalism and the seizure of all means of labour by society;[e] the full product of labour must fall to the part of the workers. He thinks that this goal will be achieved if one manages to enact a series of laws that constitute serious labour legislation. In order to achieve this, they organize themselves mainly in the political field; therefore, they are working towards enabling their people to enter parliament and local administrations. They are not begging for laws, as a favour, or a grace, granted by a higher class to a lower class — no, they demand that Parliament, the creature and servant of the people, pass laws that correspond to the will and needs of the people.
The organization represented by Keir Hardie constitutes a particular party that strives for the welfare of the workers. A few months ago, working comrades in Newcastle cast 45,000 ballots for the party's candidates, three of whom were elected to the school board. For a long time it has been repeated as a fixed belief that the worker in Wales and Great Britain only works 9 hours a day. Nothing could be more false! It is true that here and there, e.g. in factories, the law prescribes it. The fixed working hours there are 56 hours a week; in the same way there is an approximate nine-hour working day for the craftsmen of the big cities. In the meantime, whenever an opportunity arises in the period of prosperity in an industry, the working day often lasts 12 hours or even 14 hours! We also notice that among the better of our workers there is a powerful tendency in favour of —49— claiming an eight working day, which is required by law and which it should be strictly forbidden to exceed. But that is far from being achieved. The officials and workers of the trams and railways also work 12 to 18 hours a day! The workers in the large, continuous process factories have a working day of 12 hours and work all 7 days a week!
As for wages, they are by no means brilliant. In the rural districts they amount to 12-15 shillings per week. The unskilled workers (manual workers) who are employed in public works earn 12 shillings a week; the miners and iron workers up to 22 shillings in the big cities; skilled workers receive 20 to 35 shillings per week for a working day standardized to 9 hours.
We should notice in passing that the official statisticians calculate the wealth created in Great Britain lock, stock and barrel at £1,200,000,000. The workers do not receive even a third part of this round sum; 800 million pounds sterling and more flow into the pockets of the idle or semi-idle.
Of the 10 million workers in Great Britain, 1 million are members of trades unions . The trades unions mostly comprise skilled workers who care very little about workers outside their organizations. The unskilled workers have no organizations at all, so to speak.
Every year a Trades Union Congress is held with the purpose of discussing labour legislation; but most of the leaders are convinced from the outset that Parliament is not in a position — and even if it were, is unwilling — to improve the economic situation of the workers. The resolutions of these congresses are therefore without any influence whatsoever. According to the view of the trades unions, the workers have to set their hands to regulating working hours and wages, without expecting any help from parliament. Experience has shown the untenability of this principle; and in the present economic system is the employer not the absolute master in both the economic and the political spheres? Within the trades unions there is therefore a strong tendency in favour of fixing working hours by law. In the course of this year the trades unionists will vote for or against a law that limits the working day to 8 Hours. Their leaders, to be sure, oppose any decision inspired by socialist ideas; but contrary to popular belief, socialist ideas are gaining more and more ground. So trade-unionism is nearing its end, and there is better work to be done. It recognizes, therefore, that if it became decisively socialist and political it would remain strong; if not, it will soon be nothing more than a mutual aid society. Certainly the Trades Unions have done some good service. They may have been the link between the past and the future, but there come certain times when the best of institutions must necessarily undergo a transformation. It is a question of life for them. So we repeat, if the trades unions do not take the step to socialism, they themselves will have pronounced their own fate.
Despite everything that has been tried in England to resolve the apalling misery, the paupers, who now number one million, will have grown to several million in a few years if we do not finally wake up and assert ourselves. One in seven every people who die is buried in a common grave. And "Great Britain is the richest country in the world", they say!
—50— For some years the workers have suffered a great deal from the competition of foreign workers who have come to England and are now helping to lower wage rates. The steelworkers of the county of Ayrshire were once paid 17 shillings a week. Now, all of a sudden, through the mediation of the Russian consul in Glasgow, the owner employs Poles, whom he pays only 12 shillings a week. Of course he reduced the wages of the other workers by the same amount, threatening the reluctant to replace them with other Poles who were ready to come at once. A similar event occurred during the last sailors' strike a few weeks ago. The owners replaced the strikers with sailors picked up everywhere, so to speak; the strikers had to submit.
Only international understanding between the workers will suffice to carry through the struggle against this measure, which the capitalists are increasingly resorting to. The consequence of this is that while the capitalists are calling in foreigners, English workers are unemployed in large numbers. Eighteen months ago, a million and a half were thrown on the streets without work, and despite a notable upturn in business, hundreds of thousands of English workers were unemployed. A normal working day of 8 hours would have the beneficial effect of creating work for all of the world. If, on the other hand, this is not achieved, in a few years' time, when this period of relative prosperity is followed by a period of crisis, the government will be faced with the alternative of shooting 1,500,000 workers, who are dying of hunger with their wives and children, or of providing them with work. The most effective means of curing this malady consists in fixing a working day of eight hours by law. In no country on the continent is the overwork greater and the underpay lower than in Great Britain.
However, the situation calls for urgent remedial action. But we English are a northern, practical and cold-blooded nation! We expect progress from something more tangible and rational than mere words, or a bloody revolution that, if started tomorrow, could hardly bring about anything good.
The submission of a bill in favor of the eight-hour day would have more effect than any revolution, that is, it would itself be one, and indeed the most effective.[f] Cunninghame Graham, Member of Parliament, excelled in the debate over this issue. Its success has been so great that not just politicians but even the uninterested have followed it. The question of the eight-hour day will join the existing items for discussion on the agenda of practical politics, and the international congress will not pass by without serious consideration of a movement towards it. We give a brotherly welcome to all our comrades who have come from all countries, whatever the colour of the tendency they follow! (Continuing applause.)[g]
Citizen Kitz, an English delegate, protests against the previous speaker’s statement with reference to the "Revolution" and assures Congress that there are people in England who believe in an imminent revolution.
The Danish delegate, Petersen , considers it useful, in relation to the facts presented by Keir Hardie, to recall that Danish seafarers who had been seduced into competing with the English strikers, had their contracts terminated as soon as the Trades Chamber of Copenhagen had learnt the purpose for which they had been recruited.
The Congress recognizes this act of solidarity with lively applause.
—51— Once this is over, citizeness Jankovska takes the floor to a general cheer:
I want to present you less a report than a simple statement on behalf of the socialist workers' committee of Warsaw .
I could turn myself into an echo of the lamentations which the wretched lot imposed on our proletarians extracts from them; I could depict the painful feelings which steal over every truly human soul at the sight of such great misery; I prefer to forego it so as not to rob you of your precious time.
Besides, is this misery not the lot of the workers of all countries who languish under the inexorable fate of the iron law of wages?
I only remind you that for us Poles there is still another circumstance which increases this shared misery, that is the political yoke of a despotism without equal, that is the feudal yoke under which we have sighed for so long that still today fathers can tell their children about the tortures and insults of which they themselves were victims.
If there is a country that really deserves the name of a Vale of Tears, it is our Poland.
This misery is so great at the present hour that, as concerns the resolutions that you intend express in the form of demands, which I take to be pacific, we can only follow you in the realm of theory.
Since we have neither freedom of speech nor freedom of association, but walkouts and workers’ associations are forbidden, our working people are not such legions of militants as the workers of other countries. We are forced into an essentially different kind of action, quite different from your large, fully public, organizations which give rise to such high hopes for the future, as your workers’ syndicates — trade union organizations — do.
But the difficulties do not allow us to turn down the task; we are far from it! We are preparing for the time when we will be able to widen the circle of our propaganda; We are working towards extensive workers’ propaganda that will not only take into account the demands that our friends in the West have already enforced, but also the wishes that are on the agenda of this Congress.
Will our efforts be crowned with success? The results that have already been achieved are an encouragement to us. Ten years ago there was hardly a strike among Polish workers. The struggle between employers and workers broke out in the form of riots, violent protests, the expressions of unchained fury. Today the workers in Warsaw have their strikes from which they emerge as winners. Even defeat does not paralyze their energy.
The discontented factory workers seek out the socialists and learn from them about the means of struggle; when the battle begins, the workers’ comrades rush to the aid of the fighters and support them with their money. A recent strike sparked such enthusiasm that the strikers were surrounded by a crowd of workers and celebrated like heroes. They were taken to a block of flats, given dinner, and the workers took it as an honour to be allowed to serve them. These facts are characteristic. These feelings of brotherhood and solidarity, of which they bear witness, will not fail to bear fruit.
Since time has not allowed me to prepare a complete survey of the Polish movement, I am content to say that Poland, although it does not yet have an organization capable of rivaling yours, is one in spirit with all those united here, marches on the same road; in saying this, on the one hand, I base myself on the results that have been achieved and —52— on the other hand, on the total moral bankruptcy of our bourgeois and national parties.
If we were so late in coming to join the socialist army, we were none the less happily able to form an all the more solid revolutionary army. If, on the other hand, it is only a small army that we can bring with us, yet you will find us by your side wherever and whenever the cause of the working people is fought for; and we will be happy to do everything in our power to bring about the victory of the European proletariat; and we are assured that the victorious legions of the West will not fail to break the chains of their Slavic brethren, who, if it is possible, suffer even more than they do themselves.
By confirming the solidarity which unites the proletariat of the West, we wist at the same time to especially confirm the solidarity which unites us with our comrades, the Russian and German socialists, our natural and closest allies. (Lively sustained cheers.)
The session was adjourned for an hour and a half.
a. Morris left a manuscript written up from his speaker's notes, in English. However, the text here is a translation from the German proceedings. The two texts are substantially similar in outline but often different in detail. The German text is close to the edited French manuscript of the proceedings.
b. At the beginning of the year Adler had been instrumental in forming the Sozialdemokratischen Arbeiterpartei (SDAP) from a coalition of left and radical groups, overcoming a long-standing division between 'radicals' (antiparliamentarians) and 'moderates' (reformists) through shared acceptance of a marxist program.
c. The actual word used is just Sensation, but it is not clear why. Nothing at all is mentioned here in the French transcription.
d. Parti Ouvrier Belge / Belgische Werkliedenpartij
e. The German translation is not quite right or is using a different source, as the French manuscripts begins ’Ses mandataires reconnaissent l’antagonisme de classe...’: Keir Hardie does not personally say he recognizes the class struggle, but claims that the workers who sponsored him do, as he later says that it is they who think that labour legislation will lead to the socialization of the means of production.
f. This passage was heavily worked on by the French editor, who added the phrase about the 8 hour day being itself a revolution, and deleted a reference to the Socialist League. The reference is not fully legible, but may be a comment added by Liebknecht during his oral translation of Morris' speech: Frank Kitz later complained that “Hardie's speech was carefully, very carefully, translated into German by Liebknecht, who in the course of it added comments of his own to demonstrate the difference between Morris and Keir Hardie.” (Commonweal, August 10th 1889, p. 250)
g. Sometime after this speech Keir Hardie and other delegates from mining areas left for the International Mineworkers Conference, held in Paris from the 18th-19th July. Edward Bernstein was present (as Secretary), as well as Guillaume-Schack and delegates from the Possibilist Congress, including the mineworkers' MP, Fenwick.