The preface is intended to be an apology — ̇an apology for late and imperfect appearance. And the best apology in this case is a clear statement of the circumstances and the facts.
The original proceedings, which could only be completed in Paris, were to be edited by me for Germany and translated into German by Wedde.
The French electoral campaign, which started immediately after the Congress and only ended in the autumn last year, delayed the drafting of the original because Guesde, to whom it was entrusted, had to devote all his energies to agitation. Several months were lost in this way. When the manuscript finally began to arrive from Paris, Wedde, for whom the work was a real pleasure, threw himself into the task with such enthusiasm that he usually finished each consignment before a new delivery arrived.[a]
Then, in the midst of the best and most joyful work, our friend who took such pleasure in life and in the struggle met with sudden death. ——
I will not consider here the loss that the party suffered in losing Wedde. For the German announcement of the proceedings of the Congress his death was truly disastrous.
The manuscripts got into disarray, some were lost and had to be laboriously replaced. And who should now do the translation into German?
— IV — In the meantime, we Germans, too, had been thrown into the electoral struggle — I had my hands full and could not possibly step in. It was necessary to sort it out ourselves. Several comrades who were well versed in French shared the remaining larger half of the work. It worked because it had to; it was not easy, especially for me, you can believe me.
Despite all the hindrances and obstacles, the German edition will appear before the French original.
And despite all its shortcomings, the proceedings of the Congress are of great value — they are rich in content and they exude something of the fresh, victorious spirit of world conquest that pervaded the first international workingmen’s parliament.
I will not talk about the significance of the Congress. To those who were dissatisfied with the way business was conducted, I have to inform them that attendance at the Congress had far exceeded the boldest expectations of the Paris conveners, and that as a result the preparations were inadequate. In truth it was an embarras de succès — too successful. The next international workers‘ Congress will have the benefit of the experience gained, including with regard to the conduct and management of business. In the future for example, one will — quite apart from the motions — have to submit reports to the Congress in printed form, so that the time used in oral presentations is saved and time remains for discussion. All the lessons will be learned, and conducting a multilingual, truly international Congress is no small matter even with the most fraternal and tolerant support of the participants.
In the future, the composition of the bureau will have to be agreed in advance — of course without anticipating the sovereign decisions of the Congress. In particular, a sufficient staff of translators must be on hand.
I want to leave unanswered the ugly attacks which a Dutch party organ brought against the German Congress delegates and especially against me — for the sake of the peace of the party, and because I hope that the impropriety and injustice of the attack has in the meantime been recognized by the authors.[b] Be that as it may, no personal resentment can take from the world — V — the fact that the International Workers‘ Congress, which met in Paris on the centenary of the French Revolution, was the greatest cultural triumph and the greatest cultural event of the 19th century, and forms the beginning of a new era, which has nothing to do with the many “very latest” eras of the class state, moving along the old well-worn tracks of the politics of the day, but signifies a break with everything that has gone before.
The First of May of this year proved that it was not a flash in the pan that blazed from the Congress — the first huge, world-encompassing action of the global proletariat, which last year in Paris signed an everlasting covenant of peace, freedom and equality.
Borsdorf, June 2, 1890.
W. Liebknecht.
a. Guesde's materials were later returned to him and finally ended up in the Guesde Archive of the International Institute of Social History. Most of them have been digitized and are freely available on-line.
b. The reference is to the front page editorial of the paper of the Dutch Social-Democratic Party, Recht voor Allen, 4/5 August 1889, which criticised the management of the Congress in general and in particular on the last day, when it accused “Liebknecht’s German guard” of browbeating any disagreement or even request for information into silence. According to Domela Nieuwenhuis (Van christen tot anarchist, 1907, Ch. 13) the article was written by the acting editor, Croll, based on the report of the three Dutch delegates, Fortuyn, Vliegen and Helsdingen. The party later printed its own short Proceedings for the Congress (mainly giving the resolutions passed), which had a similar tone.