Citizen Deville chairs the meeting; he asks for the greatest possible silence. He is determined to fully enforce the rules of order established by Congress itself in the interests of all. He will therefore not consider a request to speak that has not been addressed to him in writing; on the other hand, anyone who is on the list of speakers can certainly count on having the floor when it is their turn. First and foremost, the debate which is about to begin relates to the amalgamation of the congresses and only to this question.
After reading out the telegrams and letters of support, the President proposes that speaking time be limited to 5 or 10 minutes for each speaker. The congress decides on 5 minutes, but at the request of Citizen Lafargue, makes an exception for those presenting motions, whose time is not to be limited,
Citizen Andrea Costa states that, in addition to the socialist workers organizations already represented, the Central Committee of the Italian Workers' Party, which has over 10,000 men behind it, most of them country people, sends Citizen Croce as delegate.[a] Also twelve workers’ groups in Rome —14— have sent a telegram in which they express their wish for the restoration of the International Workingmen's Association. Citizen Costa wholeheartedly supports the merger of the two congresses, the letter from the Belgian Workers’ Party and the address of the American Federation. He hopes that the other Congress will co-operate, and that a cordial understanding will be the result.
Citizen Volders returns to the voting method, because Citizen Vaillant did not convince him. He supports the proposal of the Belgian Workers’ Party. In his opinion, the task of the congress is to bring about the merger. If it achieves nothing but this, it will have already done a great and important job. He calls for the merger on behalf of the Belgians he represents, of the Dutch, the Italians, in short of almost all non-French delegates. We are — he says — a democratic party, so subject to the decisions of the majority. Well, the majority want the merger; the merger must therefore come about and personal misgivings must come second. In the event that the merger proposal does not succeed, however, he demands that the Belgians have the honour of calling the next international congress in Belgium in 1890 or 1891, in a way that buries the divisions which would inevitably in the longer term spread to the other countries, so that one would have a divided and therefore powerless proletariat everywhere.
Citizen Cipriani agrees with Citizen Volders. Without unity, proletarians remain the slaves of their paymasters. We need a single congress in which there is no room for personal sensitivities and the vanities of leaders. Personal feuds must be pacified. The unity of the great family of workers is indispensable for the struggle against the Boulangists, Bonapartists and other reactionaries. The Italians have received a binding mandate to use all their powers for this unification, in order to avoid the spectacle of a split in the proletariat in the land of the revolution. Citizen Cipriani begs the Congress to support the peace proposal, since the Possibilist Congress also represents a workers’ party. At the end he exclaims: "Unification speaks for itself!"
Citizen de Paepe is astonished that the merger project does not glide to its goal as smoothly as a letter through the post. He is disappointed because he sees the matter dragging on. He is convinced that unification is desired by the organizers of both congresses; but he believes that it is up to this Congress, as the more socialist and more advanced, to take the matter in hand and thereby put its consistent socialism into practive. Since this congress has begun one day earlier than the other, it could have done something for unification. Citizen de Paepe knows well that grudges do not disappear overnight, but one could nevertheless, without losing any personal dignity, work together shoulder to shoulder in a unified congress. He hopes that the French will follow the example of the foreigners and bring themselves to unite, following the example of good comradeship given at the Paris city council by the representatives of the various schools of socialism.
Citizen Duprès: There is so much talk about the merger. But has one also investigated whether a fusion is possible between revolutionary socialists and cadettists[1] like Joffrin? Our foreign —15— friends have come to Paris to come to an understanding with working and revolutionary France, not with the allies of bourgeois radicalism and opportunism. For example, what would the so advanced German socialists think of us if they saw us grovelling before the confederates of Ranc and Clemenceau? The Socialists cannot go to the Possibilists because the latter are merely bourgeois politicians, and because the foreign socialists would not agree to unite with the bourgeois. Nobody denies that there are convinced socialists among the Possibilists. But let them come to us and let the others stay away.
Citizen Liebknecht notes that before the Belgians and Italians, in the opening session itself, the delegates from Berlin were the first to bring up the proposal of a merger. The Germans have always favoured merger and still stand by this point of view. But it is a question of finding an appropriate form which harms no one, does not demean anyone and does not create mistrust; without such a form, merger would only toss a new apple of discord among the socialists. It is quite impossible to demand a merger at any cost. Such a demand would signify a reproach against the organizers of the Congress, who have completely fulfilled their duty and done everything possible to bring about an agreement. Unity is undoubtedly a very fine thing; but it will not be possible to carry it out to the benefit of those who are to blame for the fact that harmony does not yet exist, and to the detriment of those who, like the Hague Conference and the Paris Organizational Commission, have done everything to bring about unity. The speaker recounts the history of the Paris International Congress. He recalls that German social democracy was initially tasked by the St. Gallen Congress with organizing an international congress. That congress was well into preparation when it was learned that the English Trades Unions had convened an international congress in London for 1888. The German Social Democrats immediately gave up their congress to join the London one, on the assumption that the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Unions would allow conditions that would also be acceptable to the countries that as the result of an abnormal state of public affairs could not give the delegates of their powerful workers’ organizations a regular mandate. Instead, the Parliamentary Committee made such demands that neither the Germans nor the Austrians could have taken part in such a congress.[b] If mandates had been added under the conditions demanded in London, this would have resulted in the dissolution of all workers’ organizations in the two countries mentioned and the confiscation of their funds. In vain did the German socialists contact the Committee of the Trades Unions to obtain acceptable conditions. The latter maintained its pretensions, which in practice amounted to the systematic exclusion of Germany and Austria. The Swiss and Americans, on principle, demonstratively withdrew from such a congress, —16— to protest against this. A London Congress thus constituted and its resolutions cannot have the slightest value for the German socialists. The Germans, however, had a second reason to hold back from the International Paris Congress which was decided in London and which a single faction of the French proletariat was entrusted with organizing: this new international congress was called precisely on the pattern of the first. Meanwhile the other faction[c] of the French proletariat for its part called an international congress in Paris with the most liberal principles of admission. The world of the proletariat would therefore see two international congresses. Then the Germans made an attempt to bring about an understanding to lead to a single congress. This understanding was supposed to come from an international conference, which, originally arranged for Nancy — which was considered the most convenient meeting place for the French — finally took place in the Hague. Both French factions were invited without partisanship. But the Possibilists stayed away: they refused to come, giving purely formal reasons. Despite their negative behaviour, a spirit of reconciliation dominated the conference, as our Belgian friends and comrades Anseele and Volders can testify. The recognition of the mandate given by the London Congress to the Possibilists, however imperfect, was approved. Only two conditions were set: first, the congress should be sovereign in determining its agenda and in examining the mandates of its participants; secondly, the convocation should come from all socialist parties and be signed equally by the Possibilists and by those delegated to do so by the congresses of Bordeaux and Troyes. The Possibilists flatly rejected these two perfectly just demands. The calling of a congress on our part was therefore inevitable. Despite all this, we are still in favour of an agreement today; but, as I have already explained, we have to find a form that does not leave us prostrate before those who have till now thwarted any equitable outcome. Liebknecht reads out the following resolution and adds: “We can go as far as this resolution. It is even necessary that we go that far; but for my part I cannot go any further without traducing my friends and my honour."
The Congress recognizes that the members of the Hague Conference and the Paris Organizing Committee have expressed their sincere desire to bring about an understanding of all socialist parties and workers’ organizations regarding the International Congress, and regrets that the steps taken to achieve such an understanding have not achieved this goal.
We say that unity is the indispensable precondition for the liberation of the proletariat, and that it is therefore the duty of every social democrat not to neglect any step which might contribute to the suppression of discord.
The Congress therefore declares that it is still ready to come to an understanding and to unity, provided that the groups of the other Congress adopt a resolution in the same sense which is acceptable to all members of our Congress.
Citizen Tressaud (Marseille) disputes any idea of unification, including the Liebknecht resolution, both from various theoretical points of view, and in particular on material grounds. All the work of the constitution of —17— the Congress would have to start from scratch; one would have to choose a new meeting place, etc. Then, above all, we cannot ally with our worst enemies. Just as the German socialists can hardly ally themselves with the pseudo-socialists à la Bismarck, so it is hardly possible for us to join the accomplices of Ferry and Clemenceau. We are always told Boulanger is the enemy; but he is not the only enemy. Behind him stands Ferry. And we cannot join hands with the bourgeoisie who rule and oppress us. Tressaud therefore places a resolution on behalf of the 58 trade unions in Marseille which he represents on the bureau's desk:
That the international revolutionary socialist Congress arose from the union of the national congresses of Marseilles, Havre, etc. with the congresses of the workers’ unions held in Lyon, Montluçon and Bordeaux,[d] that it is accordingly the real congress of the socialist workers’ party, that its doors are still open to all socialist groups and circles, as well as to the workers' unions;
That, furthermore, the organizers of the Dissident Congress have been offered every concession to reach an agreement; that a conference on this subject has been held at The Hague and that it has only given negative results; that the dissidents have rejected any reconciliation, for political motives which they cannot admit to, and the meaning of which may not be clear to our friends from abroad; but which to the French socialists are completely trasparent;
On these grounds the Congress decides that it is inappropriate to once again make conncessions to people who have long marched hand in hand with the worst enemies of the workers — with the opportunists and bourgeois radicals with whom they have sealed the shameful alliance of the Rue Cadet
— and so moves to the agenda.
Nevertheless, we call once again for all delegates of the groups, circles and unions to be welcomed with the warmth that lies in the nature of independent socialists.
Finally, Citizen Tressaud remarks: “So you can see that we do not want to exclude anyone. All organizations that approach us should be welcome.“
Citizen Morris (England) is also in favour of a Congress that is open to all, but does not consider a merger to be feasible. The parties represented here have chosen this Congress as a truly socialist one and will not be able to go anywhere else. What we are striving for is a transformation of the foundations of society, that is, the emancipation of labour through a corresponding reorganisation of all relations, while at the other Congress one will be content to determine the fate of the modern slaves within limits that are compatible with the present order of things. The Possibilists only cultivate electoral opportunism, and no socialism. If we went over to the other congress, we would only put the socialist stamp on a bourgeois assembly. Our congress is open to all people of good will, but a merger is a complete impossibility. The two congresses are too different to be able to merge. Here one strives for the abolition of the wage system, there for nothing but feeble reforms. We are revolutionary socialists and have nothing to do with Cadettists.
—18— Citizen Lafargue translates Morris' speech into French.
Citizen Costa (Italy) protests against the translation of Citizen Lafargue, claiming that it is “too free”.
The chairman remarks to Citizen Costa that Citizen Morris understands French, since he has signed up as a translator from English into French, and that he himself would therefore be able to protest against an inaccurate translation of his speech. Citizen Morris is equally content.[e]
Citizen Lavigne (Bordeaux): “We have always shown the most conciliatory disposition. Lafargue, our delegate at the conference, was instructed to support any unification efforts that might have emerged at the Hague Conference, and he carried out his task faithfully, as Anseele and Volders were able to see for themselves, just as they knew — because it was they who passed the Hague proposals on to the Possibilists — how curtly the latter rejected these proposals. Should those who from the beginning did everything to bring about an agreement, and who, moreover, have always served the socialist cause well, should they tolerate the suggestion that they ought to bow down to those who always curtly refused to come to an understanding while at the same time piling betrayal on betrayal?“ — The speaker thanked their friends from abroad for their good intentions. But they must know that everything has been done to avoid duplicating the Congress. If one wanted to please the Possibilists, one would have to send a delegation to them, which would give them the pretext to announce to the world that our Congress, which we held without them, had been shipwrecked and we had surrendered. Lavigne presented a resolution signed by him, Baudin and Dormay to this effect, but withdrew it in favour of the Tressaud resolution.[f]
Citizen Keats[g] (England) thinks that it is materially impossible to merge the two congresses. It is too late. He thinks that a congress agreed under such circumstances would not bring about a reconciliation, but would turn into a debating club, if not a battlefield. They had learnt to recognize the letters of invitation from both congresses at the time; their character was so different that they could not be confused. The organizers of our Congress have been inundated with insults from the bourgeois press and from the newspapers which denounce the name of socialism. All the malicious anti-socialists of England, who do not want to improve the lot of the workers but rather their own situation, went to the other congress with the Possibilist leaders who are just like them. They would be overjoyed to be able to say to the English bourgeoisie after achieving the merger of the two congresses: We have faithfully carried out the mandate you have given us and destroyed the International Socialist Congress.
The German delegates ask for the debate to be closed. There are 33 speakers left. Citizen Lafargue asked if he could read the report of the commission. Since it has already been distributed to the delegates, this request is rejected.
Citizen Sommer (Dresden) says in favour of closure that he and his colleagues have been sufficiently informed about the subject. The English Trades Unions and the labour unions that have joined the Possibilist Congress are not socialist, and just as we had to part with the non-socialist associations à la Schulze-Delitzsch, we also have to give the others, the French, freedom to make an analogous divorce.
After a few words from Keir Hardie (England) and Morris (England) against closure, and from Luss (France) to return to the agenda, closure is approved by a large majority.
—19— Citizen de Paepe (Belgium) asks, following the vote, for an exception in favour of the nationalities who have not yet spoken on the matter, and the English delegates who have different views than Keats and Morris.
This motion, intended to give the Spaniards, Romanians, Scandinavians, Austrians and Americans a hearing, is rejected by a vote for an absolute closure.
Citizen de Paepe following on from this new vote, demands that the vote should be decided according to nationalities.
The Chairman noted that this would be a resumption of the debate under a different form.
Citizen Costa (Italy) asks citizen de Paepe to withdraw his request regardless. After citizen Mesa (Spain) declared that the Spanish delegates bowed to the will of the majority, the Congress decides on citizen Jaclard's proposal that in future it will be decided before the vote whether to vote by head or by nationality. A vote, once it has taken place in one way or the other, is absolutely binding.
Citizen Mesa (Spain) asks that in future there should be no voting before at least one representative of each nationality has been heard.
Citizen Werner (Berlin) stated before the reading of the remaining motions that although he had demanded an explanation of the preparatory steps for the merger in the opening session, he had not meant by that to express the slightest rebuke against the organizers of the Congress. Liebknecht has since added the desired information. Because of this, the speaker withdraws his proposal from the opening session: “Because we have the same points of view as the French Marxists, we are absolutely against merging with the Possibilists.”
The Congress declares that the Hague Conference and the Paris Organizing Commission have done everything possible, not only to bring about the Congress, but also to achieve agreement and understanding.
The Congress appeals to the sense of belonging[h] of the few groups and trade unions that have so far kept apart, and so moves to the agenda.
Citizen Vaillant adds to the reading: After what has been done there is nothing more to be done. Our congress is open to all who want to take part in it. We cannot go a step further because we want to remain a socialist congress.
Recognising that the Socialist parties represented at the Congress resulting from the Hague Conference have taken part in numerous attempts to amalgamate the two congresses and made every effort to bring about unity, which they wish to declare themselves in favour of today, and that all their efforts have failed,
Recognising that attempting further steps is not required of those who have always declared themselves ready for an agreement and who have so far only been rejected, the Congress calls on the advocates of these further steps not to turn first to those who have already consented to the merger, but to those who have repulsed them, postpones any decision until it sees a formal request from the latter, and so moves to the agenda, noting that it is still open to all groups of socialist workers.
—20— Citizen Jules Guesde notes that this agenda[i] was intended to prevent roles from being reversed. It is not fitting for those who have always striven for an understanding to be portrayed as having thwarted it.
The Congress
Noting with regret that all efforts to unite into a single Congress have been unsuccessful,
Considering that the agenda of both Congresses is almost exactly the same,
Considering that the unification of the workers of the whole world is the duty of all,
Resolves that the amalgamation of the two congresses is accepted, that the validity of the mandates on both sides is recognized, and that, as soon as the other congress has passed an identical resolution, a commission will be elected to reach an understanding on unification.
“I have to ask for your forbearance right from the start - says Citizen Domela-Nieuwenhuis, because I cannot speak very loud: all the talking back and forth has almost robbed me of my voice. I think that our resolution does not need many words, because it speaks for itself. The rest of us who do not live in France do not want to interfere in disputes of the French socialists, but we also do not want these various disputes to cross borders and become international. We want international understanding, not international division. We do not have to investigate who is to blame for this unfortunate difference, but we are all affected by the fact that there are two congresses with almost the same agenda: do we not have a sacred duty to do everything possible to make the two congresses one, even if we have to sacrifice our own? I think — yes! When I stepped into our hall, the first thing I saw was the word of our illustrious friend and master Karl Marx, the testament that he left us: “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” Marx did not say: socialists of all countries!, but simply: proletarians of all countries! Well, let us preach this gospel! We must not let this teaching remain a dead letter, we must put it into practice. One does not say: “There is only one really Catholic Church and all others are heretics and dissidents.” I know, the Possibilists have said exactly that in their paper “Le Parti Ouvrier” (“The Workers’ Party”). But that is no reason for us to follow them on this path. It would also be, so to speak, a lawyers’ quibble, because who would say that the program of the Possibilists in France, the program of the Social-Democratic Federation of England, is not socialist? Who would say that the previous year in London the decision was not made to hold a socialist congress? No, we do not want to investigate which of the two is right, but at this moment when the eyes of the whole world are on Paris and the attitude of the socialists, it would be deplorable if the bourgeois world enjoyed the pleasure of seeing division in the socialist camp. The division is their triumph and our disgrace. When the delegates from everywhere say with one voice: “We are celebrating the anniversary of the French Revolution! We consider it an excellent idea that the socialists from all over the world should come together for this festival”, — —21— well, then we have the right to demand that the two socialist parties of France conclude an armistice for this moment, so that we, to our joy and to the benefit of the whole proletariat, can spare the whole world the spectacle of two congresses assembled at the same time in the same city with the same purpose and with almost the same agenda. I hope everyone will support our view in the proposed form, which will not hurt anyone on either side, so that we can say: We are not rejecting unity! On the contrary, we are providing the proof that we are ready to make a sacrifice. There are two currents here, one of which says that it does not want unity at all. These are the French and many of the English, for whom the situation is the same as in France, as a result of the differences between the Socialist League and the Social-democratic Federation. As they have spoken thus, I ask them whether the efforts that Liebknecht reported were just a farce? Yes or no? If one wants an agreement, one must look for conditions which make it possible. Not what divides us, but what unites us, is what forms our strength against our common enemy — and we have a common enemy that we all fight, capitalism. Truly, my friends, capitalism will tremble when it sees the united socialists marching together against it. Our war cry is: “Down with capitalism! Long live revolutionary socialism!”
Citizen Domela, who had been greeted with prolonged applause, ended with lively applause.
Citizen Desville apologizes for violating his duty as chairman by firstly allowing Citizen Domela to reopen a debate that has been closed several times and secondly by letting Citizen Domela speak for more than 5 minutes. He acted in this way out of respect for a man who had sacrificed so much for the labour cause and suffered so much.
Citizen Merlino (Italy) supports the Nieuwenhuis motion.
Citizen Adler (Austria) vigorously protests on behalf of the Austrians against the talk of some people that the Austrian Workers' Party was represented at the Possibilist Congress. All the delegates of this party are here at the Socialist Congress. where international democracy is united. We are in favour of unification, but if you want it you have to avoid making victor and vanquished; otherwise one will only produce new hatreds and divisions. Now, according to Tressaud's proposal, the Possibilists would be the vanquished; according to Nieuwenhuis, it would be the Marxists. The speaker is therefore for the Liebknecht motion. Foreign delegates should not interfere in the disputes of the French.[j]
The Rumanian delegates reserve the right to submit their proposal regarding a future congress again, but initially unanimously agree to second Liebknecht’s motion and ask that the next congress be called in such a form that all anti-capitalist forces with regard to the class struggle and the socialization of the means of production are brought together.
D. Beinow. C. Racowitz. A. Sculescu. Procopine. Many.
Citizen Bushe (United States of America) has received a mandate for both congresses. He went to the Editorial Committee of The Proletariat (official organ of the Possibilists) and did not find the gentlemen there socialist enough, that is why he is here. Meanwhile he is in favour of unification. Even if there were only a few socialists at the other congress, one would have to reach out a hand.
—22— Citizen Frohme (Germany) speaks against unconditional unification. One can sacrifice personal misgivings to unification, but not honour. He approves Liebknecht's motion, which maintains honour, but is otherwise as forgiving as possible.
Citizen Iglesias (Spain) is also for unification, but it must be a work of the head, not just a work of the heart. He wonders why the Dutch and Belgians insist on an agreement in this congress, although they are better informed than he can possibly be about everything that has been tried to reach an understanding. It is up to the other congress to preach unity, for it is precisely they who have ceaselessly rejected it. Iglesias agrees with Liebknecht's motion and adds that the Spanish delegates at the Possibilist congress do not represent any part of the Spanish Workers’ Party.
Citizen Batisse (Troyes) states that he supports the Guesde motion.
Citizen Palmgreen on behalf of the delegates of Sweden and Norway and Citizen Petersen (Denmark)[k] presented the following resolution to the Congress, adding:
“It is impossible to reach an agreement with the Possibilists, who have allied themselves with the bourgeoisie. If there are really groups among them who stand on the ground of the class struggle, let them come to us! Let the others, the pro-government people, stay where they are!"
In view of the fact that the unity of all socialist and revolutionary workers is self-evident, we, the societies of Norway and Sweden, warmly wish for this unification; but in recognition that unification can only take place among socialists who stand on the revolutionary class standpoint, we believe, on the basis of the explanations given, that we cannot consider unification to be possible in the present case.
Palmgreen, Allard, Delegates from Sweden. A Jeggesen, delegate from Norway.[l]
Delegate Keir Hardie (England) is against the Liebknecht motion and in favour of the Nieuwenhuis motion. He wants unification because there are socialist trades unionists at the Possibilist Congress, with whom one can come to an understanding, since there is no difference in principle, and since we have to show the bourgeoisie a united front.
Citizen Christensen (Denmark): The Danish Socialist Party has done everything possible for unification without having achieved the slightest result so far. It does not reject the considerations of Liebknecht's motion, but nevertheless supports the Nieuwenhuis motion.
Citizen John Ritson (Manchester) argues that although there were socialists at the other congress, the leaders were not socialists; anyway, all attempts at unification had come from our side and had been rejected by the latter; and finally the time was now actually lacking to carry out a unification.
Citizen Wortelmans (Antwerp) does not understand how one can speak of the Possibilists as if they were not socialists, when their congress has the same agenda as ours.
Citizen Kuhnert (Berlin) supports the Tressaud motion. He finds that a fresh, cheerful war is worth more than a rotten peace.
Citizen Cipriani (Italy), on behalf of the Italian delegates, requests voting by nationality.
Three motions are to be considered,since the signatories of the Guesde and Vaillant motions are supporting that of Liebknecht: —23— the aforementioned motion of Liebknecht, the Nienwenhuis motion, and the Tressaud motion. The latter declares that he is not against unification, as de Paepe suggested, but only against it being us to demand it.
The vote gives the following result:
for the Liebknecht motion: Germany, Switzerland, Romania, Alsace-Lorraine, Russia, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Spain, America, England, France - 12 nationalities.
for the Tressaud motion: Sweden and Norway - 2 nationalities;
for the Nieuwenhuis motion: Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Denmark - 4 nationalities.
Liebknecht's motion is therefore approved.
In announcing France's vote, Vaillant makes a certain reservation. All the French, he said. were unanimously in favour of Tressaud's proposal. But in consideration of the circumstances and in compliance with the delegates from abroad, they supported Liebknecht's motion, since it adequately protects the dignity of the Congress and keeps to the grounds of the Organizing Commission and the Hague Congress. The English delegates agree with this reservation and express their full sympathy for Tressaud's proposal.
After the results of the vote had been announced, the meeting was adjourned at 3 p.m.
1. When the danger of Boulangism arose in France, the bourgeois republicans founded a society for “human rights“ which all defenders of the republic were to join. The Possibilists joined thia republican bourgeois mish-mash and so became official train bearers for this wedding between the bourgeois parties and the opportunist government. The “Society for Human Rights” was founded in the Rue Cadet — hence the name "Cadettists", "Cadettish" etc. for the French ruling parties.
a. Giuseppe Croce was leader of the Partito Operaio Italiano, which would later fuse with Andrea Costa’s Partito Socialista Rivoluzionario Italiano. However, according to the proceedings of the Possibilist Congress, Croce protested against being associated with the 'irregular' Marxist Congress by Costa.
b. The Parliamentary Comittee wished to allow attendance at the Congress only by mandate of a workers' organization. The German and Austrian Laws of Exception made it an offence to be a member of such an organization, so official mandates would make the attenders at the Congress liable to arrest. The solution offered by the German and Austrian socialist parties was to have party members mandated through local organizations - union branches, electoral circles etc - of which they were also members. Kautsky was sent to London to negotiate along these lines, but was turned down.
c. I.e. the ‘Marxist’ faction of Guesde and Lafargue.
d. The 3rd Congres Ouvrier Socialiste was held in Marseilles in October 1879; Tressaud was on the executive, in his first major political role. The congress claimed to have inherited the duty to call an international conference from the Guesdist Chambres syndicales present. In the following congress at Havre (October 1880) the Guesdists formally broke with the more conservative union elements. The Lyon union congress of October 1886 saw the creation of the Guesdist Federation Nationale des Syndicats; the following two Congresses at Montluçon in 1887 and Bordeaux in 1888 produced demands (in particular, an 8 hour day and celebration of the 1st of May) very similar to those of the current Congress.
e. The German says Gleichwohl ist Bürger Morris zufrieden.. The French manuscript of which the German Protokol is a translation says instead Loin de reclamer, Citoyen Morris applaudit - “Far from complaining, Citizen Morris applauded”. This is the only divergence between the original and the German in this section.
f. Raymond Lavigne was a leader of the Federation Nationale des Syndicats from Bordeaux, and a Guesdist; Eugène Baudin, from Vierzon, was a unionist and from 1889 a socialist Deputy; and Jean Dormoy, from Montluçon, who was later leader of the Parti Ouvrier Français, inspired Lavigne’s motion for the 1st of May.
g. A mistake by the German translator; this is actually Frank Kitz, Morris’s co-delegate from the Socialist League executive committee (his name is spelt correctly in the French manuscript, and there was no ‘Keats’ in the English delegation).
h. The French manuscript does not mention a "sense of belonging" (Zugehörigkeitsgefühl) and simply says "The Congress appeals to those few groups ...".
i. Both the French original and the German translation have "agenda" here; this seems to be a slip and "motion" is meant.
j. According to the Berliner Volksblatt, 23rd July 1889 p.2, at this point there was an intervention by Frau Guillaume-Schack: "Frau Schack (London) is of the opinion that only the Possibilist leaders, not the Congress itself, are opposed to amalgamation. We have to send a delegation to the congress to ask its participants to join us directly. The troops would certainly unite against their leaders with us, and we would emerge victorious."
k. Nikolaj Petersen was a member of the left fraction led by Gerson Trier in the Danish Workers’ Party. Petersen's motion was aligned with Tressaud's, and 'Pierre' Christensen's with Nieuwenhuis, which is likely to have reflected the official view of their party. In November 1889 the left faction were expelled from the party for refusing to accept an alliance with the Danish liberal party (Venstre), and formed the Revolutionary Socialist Workers’ Party. Christensen left with them.
l. There is no "A. Jeggesen" listed as a Norwegian delegate, but there is Carl Jeppesen, founding member of the Norwegian Workers’ Party. Unfortunately the original motion is not included in sequence with the other papers.