Adolphe Thiers had made himself responsible for a massive destruction of human life. By removing the apparatus of administration from Paris he had precipitated the establishment of the Commune. But in the Commune he perceived the ghost of that 'Social Republic' which as early as 1848 had thrown the propertied members of the middle class into a paroxysm of fear. In June 1848 the cry of the workers for a Social Republic had been drowned in their blood and Thiers was determined to repeat the performance. No impartial examination of what happened between 13 February and 21 May 1871 can today leave the slightest doubt that this was in fact his intention from the start.
So far as Thiers was concerned, no moral scruples would deter him from executing his plan. According to the estimate of General MacMahon, about 14,000 defenders of the Commune were slaughtered in the streets of Paris or summarily executed; 10,137 prisoners were sentenced by court martial, about half being transported to New Caledonia and the other half imprisoned in France. At the same time Thiers declared martial law over the whole country. He further, on 14 March 1872, passed through Parliament an emergency law directed against the International. It was his intention, as he explained, that the French state should treat the followers of the International as the Spanish Inquisition had treated heretics. In its very first Article the Act declared that 'by the mere fact of its existence, the International…represents a threat to public order'. Hence article 2 provided that everyone who, subsequent to the Law's enactment, 'subscribes to the principles of the International Working Men's Association, joins or remains a member of it' was liable to imprisonment.
In order to justify before world opinion the unusual ferocity with which France was persecuting the International under the inspiration of Thiers, a highly coloured picture was presented of the threat which it constituted to bourgeois social order. Even before the Commune had been proclaimed in Paris, the middle class had tended to view the International as a serious threat to its social supremacy. Under the Empire there had been three prosecutions for conspiracy brought against the leaders of the Paris section, and shortly before the outbreak of war the police had arrested all members on whom they could lay hands throughout France, on a charge of conspiring against the Emperor's life. In France, Belgium and Switzerland the bourgeois press had held the International responsible for initiating the strike movement of 1868, and scarcely two weeks before the outbreak of war, fourteen leading members of the Social Democratic movement in Austria were found guilty of sympathizing with the aims of the International, and were sentenced by a Viennese court to years of hard labour.
It took the events in Paris, however, to convince the bourgeois world of the terrifying power of the International. Column after column was given over to descriptions of the International, led by its General Council in London, hatching conspiracies at once with the Bonapartists and with Bismarck, intervening decisively in the events of the war, plotting insurrections and finally putting Paris to the flames. The Kölnische Zeitung alleged that after the setting-up of the French Republic the General Council had decided that the war should continue and had handed over 200,000 francs to the French section to pay for war propaganda. According to the Paris Figaro the 200,000 francs had been given to the International by the supporters of Bonaparte. Reuter's reported that the General Council had sent a delegation to the National Assembly in Bordeaux to urge a continuation of the war. On the other hand a number of French papers, including the Courier de Lyon, the Courier de la Gironde and La Liberté, reported secret sessions of members of the General Council in Geneva and Berne, with a Prussian delegate in the chair, planning the Lyon insurrection of 29 September so as to weaken the French Republic's resistance to the German invasion. It was also disclosed in the French Press that Marx had been Bismarck's private secretary and that, with his accomplices in London, he had hatched the plot which led to the establishment of the Paris Commune. A few months later, when the French papers had charged the International with setting fire to Paris, the American Press revealed that the great fire which had reduced Chicago to ashes in October 1871 had been started by the International and the story was telegraphed round the world.[1]
In this way bourgeois opinion had been well prepared by the newspapers for the murderous events of May 1871, and the massacres in the streets of Paris could be applauded as a great victory in the cause of civilization. But the extermination of the International in France had not, apparently, averted the threat to civilization. On 6 June 1871, a few days after the defeat of the Commune, Thiers's Foreign Minister, Jules Favre, released a circular letter to the European powers, warning them, and through them the entire world, of the menace which the International still presented to their way of life. The note denounced the International as 'a society breeding war and hatred. Its foundation is atheism and Communism. Its aim is the destruction of capital and those who possess it. Its medium is the brute force of the masses.' The note concluded with the warning cry: 'Europe is confronted with an agent of destruction aimed at all nations and at the very principles on which civilization depends.' France had done everything which was humanly possible to save civilization. But, the note implied, as the International was a threat to all nations, it was not enough to stamp it out in one country. It had to be annihilated everywhere, and this demanded joint action by the European powers.
The circular was dispatched as a feeler, to test the reactions of other countries to the idea of collaborating in a common effort against the International. Consequently, Jules Favre confined himself for the time being to the question of how the refugees from the Commune should be regarded. Were they entitled to political asylum? The Marquis de Banneville, French Ambassador at Vienna, told the Austro-Hungarian Chancellor, Count Beust, that 'these refugees cannot be allowed to conceal their crimes behind the cloak of political aims; they should be treated as ordinary criminals and given no protection against the justice awaiting them at home'.[2] Jules Favre's circular was given careful consideration by the Cabinets of the main European countries.
Four days after receiving the note, the Austrian Council of Ministers met to decide on 'the question of extradition for those who had fled after taking part in the outrages of the Paris uprising', as it was worded on the agenda of the Council meeting. On this, Count Beust had submitted a memorandum on his conversation with the French Ambassador. It stated that, without wishing to anticipate the decision of the Ministerial Council, Beust suggested, for their consideration, that 'the disaster in Paris did not occur through merely local factors, but was mainly the work of a European conspiracy calling itself the International'. From general, political and humanitarian considerations alike, therefore, it was of supreme importance to avoid giving the impression 'that the supporters of the Commune had only to fly to Austria-Hungary to enjoy greater security than in any other country'.[3] Meanwhile, Bismarck was preparing to initiate a European-wide campaign against the International. In a memorandum which he submitted to the Cabinets of Europe on 1 July 1871, he proposed a conference of governments to discuss common action and the establishment of a European alliance against the International. 'Such a European alliance,' said Bismarck's journal, the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 'is the only possible means of saving the state, church, culture, in a word, everything which makes up the life of European states.' The proposal foundered in the first place in Britain, the seal of the General Council. The British Foreign Minister, Lord Granville, flatly rejected the invitation to join the European alliance, since his country did not feel in any way threatened by the International.
Bismarck, however, did not abandon his project for action against the International on a continental scale. He told the Austro-Hungarian government that he would welcome discussions on 'a common approach towards the subversive activities of the International'. Soon afterwards, Prince Bismarck and Count Beust met at Gastein in order, as Beust later explained in a detailed account, 'to reach an understanding on common measures for defence and struggle . . . against the increasing spread of the International, which exercises a dangerous influence particularly among the working classes, and which is directed against the existing principles of state and society'.[4]
At the Gastein conference, Bismarck and Beust discussed judicial as well as social and political measures against the International. On the legal aspect Beust remarked that, under Austrian law, 'the International, which is led by the General Council in London and, so far as Germany is concerned, by the Executive of the Social Democratic party in Leipzig, is a secret society and therefore has no legal right to exist'. It would therefore be prosecuted as a secret society in Austria. Regarding social policy, Beust wondered whether, in the course of the class struggle, 'it would not be possible to confront the general workers' association with a general association of employers, the solidarity of the propertyless with the solidarity of property', since, he added, 'the power of capital is still a factor making for security and stability in public life'. Finally, Beust and Bismarck agreed that the appropriate Ministries in both countries should work out specific measures to combat the International, and that their recommendations should be submitted to a conference of delegates from the two governments.
After returning from his Gastein conference with Bismarck, Beust secured from his Cabinet a special credit, originally of 3,000,000 gulden, to meet 'the expenses of political intelligence' which had, he asserted, become absolutely necessary 'in view of the dangerous spread of the International over the whole of Europe'.
The Austrian government held its first ministerial conference in Vienna, under the chairmanship of Count Beust, on 1 September 1871. It had before it the circular from Jules Favre and inquiries from the Italian, Russian, British, Belgian and Swiss governments about the measures which the Austrian government had taken against the International. The real purpose of the conference, however, was to work out the guiding principles for a programme of action. At a further conference, under the chairmanship of the Austrian Prime Minister, Prince Adolf Auersperg, in December 1871, Bismarck's suggestion for an all-European conference of governments was considered. Auersperg expressed the view that owing to the 'differences of opinion prevailing in some countries, such as England and Switzerland, regarding the character of the International', it would be expedient to call first of all a conference of Austro-Hungarian and German government representatives to discuss measures 'for the protection of the social order against the attacks of the International'.
At yet another conference of Austro-Hungarian Ministers under the chairmanship of the Foreign Minister, Count Andrassy, on 22 June 1872, it was proposed that the International 'be declared generally harmful by the comity of European states, and that all should refuse to permit the holding and assembling of congresses and of the General Council, on their territory'. Andrassy believed, or at least hoped, that 'England and Switzerland could not stay out of such an international agreement indefinitely'. It was further proposed that in Germany, as in Austria-Hungary, the International should be declared a secret society and prosecuted as such. It was finally proposed 'to treat the activity of the International, in view of its nature and potentialities, as a criminal activity to which extradition agreements would then apply'. Discussions between the two governments on measures to combat the International dragged on until the late autumn of 1872. Finally, on 7 November 1872, the full conference of delegates from the German and Austro-Hungarian governments met in Berlin. They discussed, over fourteen sessions, 'the social question' in all its aspects. Their results were expressed in the following principles:
The conference of the two monarchies, however, did not lead in either country to any tightening of the laws against the International. A more stringent interpretation of existing laws was all that was required to ensure its effective suppression. The trials of Scheu and Oberwinder in Vienna, and of Bebel and Liebknecht in Leipzig, showed that mere verbal support of the aims of the International could be construed as evidence of high treason. Both governments were also unwilling to incur the odium, before world opinion, of debasing the machinery of justice in the interests of vengeance, as France had done. Germany and Austria agreed to treat the French proposal for an agreement on extraditing refugees as 'dilatory', hoping that before too long Britain and Switzerland, where political refugees enjoyed rights of asylum, would change their attitude in the cause of solidarity in the fight against the International.
Pope Pius IX attempted to hasten the process of reappraisal, in Switzerland if not in Britain, by an appeal to Christian conscience regarding the right of political asylum. The suggestion of Thiers that the followers of the International should be treated as the Spanish Inquisition had treated heretics, met with his sympathetic approval. In an address to a deputation of Swiss Catholics, he referred to it in the following terms: 'Your government, which is republican, feels obliged to make great sacrifices in the interests of so-called freedom. It grants asylum to characters of the worst kind. It gives free scope to the International, which would like to treat the whole of Europe as it treated Paris. These gentlemen of the International,' concluded His Holiness, 'are to be feared, because they labour in the cause of the eternal enemy of God and mankind. What is to be gained, then, in affording them protection?'[5] An echo of the condemnation of the International by Pius IX occurred in the encyclical, Quod Apostolici Muneris, issued by his successor Pope Leo XIII on 28 December 1878. Leo XIII denounced the International as 'a criminal organization' which, he said, had set itself the aim of 'destroying the basis of authority in this world'. He condemned Socialism as a 'heresy of the depraved' and he called on the Christian world to 'ensure that no Catholic joins this heretical organization or dares to encourage it in any way'.
Despite the Papal exorcism, however, Catholic Spain was the only one among the European powers prepared to sign an agreement with France on the extradition of Communard refugees. As early as October 1871 the International had been prohibited in Spain by a decree of the Cortes. A few months later, on 16 February 1872, the Spanish Prime Minister, Sagasta, issued a circular to the provincial governors on the operation of the decree. It ordered them to 'treat the International as outside the frame of the Constitution and subject to the criminal law, since it has declared itself to be the enemy of the fatherland, a foe to public safety, and has rejected the state, property and the family'. Therefore, they must 'prevent by all means, including the use of force, all public activity designed to insinuate this criminal organization into our society. Its leaders must be imprisoned at once and handed over to the courts.'[6]
At the same time, the Spanish government took up the idea of joint action on the part of the European powers against the International which Bismarck had proposed in his memorandum of 1 July 1871. The Spanish circular to the governments of Europe on 9 February 1872 called attention to a debate in the Cortes—'perhaps the most important that has ever taken place in a European assembly', was the modest description. This debate, claimed the circular, 'had defined the true nature of the International Working Men's Association'. The Cortes had reached the momentous conclusion that 'this mighty and terrible organization, and its rapid development, must within the next few years attract the attention of all those who are concerned to preserve the social order'. Moreover, the scholarly researches undertaken by or on behalf of the Cortes, have established the fact that the existing social system 'was threatened to its depths by the International', since that diabolical society 'flies in the face of all human tradition, strikes God from the mind, denies family and the principle of heredity, and rejects alike the sublime principles of nationality and civilization'.
The Cortes had then turned to wrestle with the problem of 'how far even the most liberal of political institutions can tolerate the existence of an organization like the International' and had reached the conclusion, after tortuous debate, that it could not be tolerate. But, the note was careful to add, 'it was not enough for one nation to suppress the International by the most stringent means; the problem is not within the jurisdiction of a single nation'. A common approach by all civilized nations was required, especially as it was mainly through the instrumentality of foreigners that the spirit of insurrection was being spread. 'If it is a question,' the note continued, 'of exorcizing the evil, then it is necessary for all nations to unite their efforts in the cause.' Finally, in an oblique reference to Britain, the note concluded: 'A solution would certainly be found more easily if one of the major powers would take the initiative in organizing a common and simultaneous action among the nations of the civilized world.'
The British government, however, responded to the Spanish invitation to join the crusade against the International as it had previously responded to a similar request from Prussia. On this occasion, Lord Granville thought it appropriate to give the Spanish government a lecture, in his note of 8 March 1872, to the effect that 'according to British law, all foreigners have an absolute right to enter the country and to remain; while they are here, they enjoy the same protection from the law as British subjects'. Moreover, foreigners, like British subjects, could be punished only for offences against the law, and only then 'after trial by jury and conviction in accordance with the law and in the light of evidence submitted in open court'. The British government saw no reason to ask Parliament to pass emergency legislation, and its view was, as the note made clear, 'shared by Parliament and public opinion'. To prevent any further time being wasted in futile discussion, Lord Granville made public the Spanish as well as the English version of his note.[7]
The attitude of the British government incurred the strong displeasure of Bismarck. What was the point, wrote the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung on 17 April 1872, of single states such as France and Spain taking 'precautions' against the International, if 'English soil provides free territory from which the other European states may be harassed under the protection of English law'?[8]
The project of a Holy Alliance against the International, suggested by Bismarck and supported by Beust, Thiers, the Pope and Sagasta, had been frustrated by the resistance of England. And the crusade by the bourgeois Press and diplomats, intended to destroy the International morally, produced the opposite effect. It provided it with undreamt-of publicity. The International had featured in the deliberations of European Cabinets and Parliaments, and in the Press. The whole world now knew about the International, its aspirations and aims, and its character as a fraternal association of the workers of all nations. The ruling classes, naturally, saw it as a threat to their principles, wealth and power. But the workers could never see it as a 'menace to society'. However dense might be the tissue of lies with which the bourgeois Press surrounded the International, its nature, from its inception, as an association of workers throughout the world to put an end to misery and humiliation, could not be concealed. Moreover, the lies told about the International were too grotesque to be believed, and the denunciation to which it was subjected by the ruling-class Press only strengthened in working-class minds feelings of solidarity with the victims of persecution. Consequently the crusade which was to blacken the name of the International in fact enhanced its prestige, giving it an importance in world politics which bore no relation to its effective power.
1. Reports by Engels, Marx and Hales to the General Council meetings, 28 February, 21 March and 2 May 1871. See also the General Council's report to the Hague Congress, 1872.
2. Ludwig Brügel, Geschichte der österreichischen Sozialdemokratie, vol. II, pp. 191ff.
3. For the text of the Beust memorandum and the Minutes of the Ministerial Council meeting of 10 June 1871, see Brügel, op. cit., vol. II, p. 191.
4. For the text of the memorandum and the minutes of the ensuing conferences, see Brügel, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 103ff.
5. Quoted in the Report of the General Council to the Hague Congress.
6. For the full text, see Rudolf Meyer, Der Emanzipationskampf des vierten Standes, vol. II, p. 118.
7. Correspondence between the British and Spanish Governments respecting the International Society (London, 1872). The House Secretary used similar arguments in Parliament on 12 April 1872, in a debate on a motion by a Conservative member, Alexander Baillie-Cochrane, to dissolve the International. Even The Times said, commenting on the debate, 'We cannot take arbitrary measures for the suppression of a Society which, so far as we know, is within the pale of our law. …'—The Times, 15 April 1872, quoted in Collins and Abramsky, op. cit., p. 247.
8. For the texts of the Spanish and English notes, and of the article in the Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, see Meyer, op. cit., vol. I, p. 158.