Citizen Leo Frankl chairs the session. He gives citizen Brandt[a] the floor to report on the subject of “The workers’ movement in Switzerland”:
The entire Swiss proletariat, which is very pleased to see the question of international labour protection legislation on the agenda of this congress — a question officially suggested by Switzerland — would have wished to be represented here. The Grütliverein - a political, social and democratic association with around 15,000 members, the trade union federation, a federation of professional associations that has 7000 followers, the Social Democratic Party founded in 1887 in an attempt to bring a national socialist party in Switzerland into being: all three of them are represented at this congress. They felt the obligation to attend it not only for the benefit of the cause that they have in their hearts, but also because they do not want to remain aloof at this serious time when the workers of all countries are extending the hand of fellowship to bring their common interests to victory more quickly. As a nation and as a party, we are passing through a critical period. As a nation, because Germany, our powerful neighbor, makes our life difficult; as a party, because these entanglements also cause difficulties for us internally. As in all of Europe, the Bismarck system is exerting its fateful influence on our Swiss land. Bismarck’s example certainly accelerated our social reform; and on the other hand, under the influence of the power which he has wielded against us, our timid authorities, supported by the bourgeoisie, imitate his police force. Our Federal Council has shown a very particular zeal on this latter point.
Deportations, house searches and interrogations are the order of the day, and Swiss citizenship gives no protection against despotism. A house search was carried out on the Swiss citizen Conzett as well as on the German refugees in Basel; an editor of the “Grütlianer” has been subjected to cross-examination as well as politically suspect foreigners.
Powerful influences, both external and internal, oppress the free —53— democratic spirit and announce increasingly bitter struggles for the future. One typical fact may be emphasized. In Switzerland we are tending towards a division in outlook, a division which, up to the present, has not appeared in our tradition and which could not be predicted from our history, but which, because it is taking place everywhere, imposes the obligation on the working class to be completely self-dependent. Switzerland is no exception in the development process of the capitalist form of property and production, a development which with us, as everywhere else, intensifies social contradictions ever more sharply. In fact, society is more and more split into two camps: on the one hand capitalists, on the other proletarians. Hence, the more capitalism grows, the more it absorbs all the means of power for its own purposes alone, the more seriously it imposes on the working class the duty to gather together for defense as well as attack, with the firm intention of reclaiming its rights.
Capitalism not only exploits the worker, the artisan and the farmer, it also corrodes our rulers, it undermines the power of the state. It is the enemy within, and is so the more mighty and therefore powerful it is. It will still take long struggles to return it to its former powerlessness. Capitalism seeks step by step to stop our advance. But powerful as the plutocracy is, it connot stop it; dissatisfaction increases more and more, brought on by the social conditions that capitalism itself has created; and with this dissatisfaction arises the conviction that this state of affairs cannot last. And in fact everyone speaks of the necessity of social reform and our federal councils themselves are fighting for the honour of assisting with this reform. It goes without saying that this social reform, dressed in police uniform, looks strange and not exactly attractive to us socialists; but on the other hand we gladly acknowledge that the national Federal Council (Bundesrath) was the first to approach the social problem. But what it has done is inadequate. It is also true that today in social circles which are not receptive to socialism and democracy, among conservatives and the bourgeoisie, there are people who demand a superficial social legislation that does not cure the evil, rather than saying: “One can no longer cure a sick society by palliative and weak remedies — one can only remove social evils by destroying their roots.” Among other things, a society for reforming land ownership has recently been formed.
We may regret the battles we foresee and which will come, but we look to the future without fear. The trials that await us will increase our power and we will ultimately achieve victory over our opponents. In the course of the last few years the workers’ party has gained a great deal of clarity, sense of purpose and determination; their influence and the number of their followers grow day by day as the old parties dissolve more and more. The number of workers’ papers, with partly political, partly trade-union content, which are published in three languages, is 15. The organization of workers in the true sense of the word includes, apart from the associations already mentioned, the active printers’ association, the union of sewing machinists, who are currently very numerous, the associations of watchmakers and the Catholic workers’ groups.
—54— All these organizations are included in the large Swiss Workers Federation, which has 100,000 members and has the Workers' Secretariat as an organ, which, although with a neutral political standpoint, nonetheless provides valuable support for the protection of the working class. In addition, thanks to the recently established reserve fund, these organizations provide strong support in the economic struggle. Among the advances that have brought our country praise and honour, the Federal Factory Act deserves to be mentioned first and foremost. This stipulates an 11 hour normal working day, restricts child labour, forbids night work, protects women, and ensures Sunday rest.
One can only regret that the execution of this law is entrusted to the supervision of the cantons by 3 factory inspectors; the latter, with one exception, fulfil their duty. The law, which could serve as a model for many other states, has currently passed its test. The experience that we have had of it has been satisfactory, although the provisions of the law are still inadequate; however, no one would want to abolish it now, and an attack would only serve to expand and complete it.
It is the same with liability for accidents. We started with liability of the railway company, later introducing it for factories` and even later we are thinking about applying it to other industries. This slow but sure advance is dictated by prudence; incidentally, it corresponds to the Swiss national character, and its success speaks in its favour. Incidentally, even if we declare ourselves to be supporters of this step-by-step approach, we will never lose sight of our ultimate goals. At the same time, while conscious of the principle and the ideals that we strive for, we do not reject the concessions that are made to us, we accept them as installments, while we endeavour to extract the final payment!
The workers are now striving for a stricter implementation of the labour protection laws, they are working for new laws on accident, sickness and old age insurance; they are striving in the same way, not without success, for an improvement in the factory law as now enforced; they demand, for example, the 10-hour normal working day, for book printers and watchmakers even an 8-hour day, and all this at the moment when international labour legislation is on the agenda.
All of this shows how wrong they are who claim that Switzerland took the initiative on international labour legislation only because the factory law being foregrounded — with the eleven-hour working day — has had a paralyzing effect. The question of a comprehensive industrial law is also being discussed in detail, and that will determine the organization of compulsory trades councils (Gewerkschaftkammer). The impetus for the organization of trades councils has already been given in some cantonal councils, and one sees everywhere, especially from the watchmakers, vigorous agitation for this demand. In other cantons, attention is also beginning to be drawn to the employment of women in fashion magazines, restaurants, beerhalls, hotels etc.. In Basel, for example, legal measures have been taken to protect women who are employed in designated establishments.
It is therefore inevitable that sooner or later the Federal Council will take these interests in hand. In general, it should be noted that our social legislation will function the better the more it is entrusted in reality, as it will one day be, to the Bunde, that is, the Central Government.
Our task is very difficult and is made even more difficult by the almost overwhelming taxes that we have on our shoulders.
—55— Incidentally, in various directions we are subject in our country to special conditions on which our tactics depend. It is possible that people unfamiliar with these conditions may not understand our tactics; but you, our comrades, must have confidence in us; for we too strive for the one socialist ideal that is identical with yours. And for our advance towards this ideal we have full confidence in the Swiss people and in our democracy, which is ready, if need be, to go up against a Bismarck.
We trust in humanity, which cannot and must not submit to an individual, if one day, as we all desire, it is to emancipate itself politically and economically. Because we have this trust and hope, we are here to work with you in the present and in the future. (Lively applause.)
Bushe, delegate of the American workers‘ party,[b] says that he has no intention of expatiating on the condition of workers in America. The working conditions there are the same as anywhere where big industry rules. Same misery, same oppression. As for the political situation of the worker in America, it differs in many ways from that of his European comrade, and the legislation is very different, since the United States is a conglomerate of various independent states.
There are several proletarian associations in that country: the trades unions, the majority of whose members are Irish and German, and the “Knights of Labor” who are about a million strong[1] and are in the strict sense of the word American citizens. Unfortunately, however, it should be noted that the greater part of workers born in America — about 19 million including families — is not yet organized. So before the eyes of the labour movement in the United States, the question will arise: What is to be done? How do you actually get hold of these 19 million people? In our judgment, labour legislation is a powerful tool to achieve that.
It is true that the various political parties in the country have tried to catch the workers for themselves by granting them some health and safety measures. But these laws have remained dead letters because the elements that can enforce their implementation are missing. The trades unions, for their part, like the English trade union organizations, initially wanted nothing to do with intervention by the state and political action by the proletariat. Meanwhile the situation has changed and, thanks to the daily increasing influence of socialism, part of the American proletariat has developed into a political party and has taken up the political struggle that was initially ignored. The program around which the Socialist Labor Party wants to rally the American proletariat is well known. However, the American, a thoroughly practical person, is not satisfied with putting forward a program. Above all, he asks what the means are to realize it. The answer of the socialists is given as follows: one must above all draw the attention of the people to the centralised industrial and commercial enterprises and explain to them that these undertakings are now only for the benefit of a few, while they should work for the benefit of the whole nation. This change can only be implemented through conscious, calm and sustained action by a proletariat that has formed itself into a political party. From this point of view it is of the utmost importance that the workers’ party takes the initiative in labour legislation, because —56— acting for such legislation will show that it wants practical reforms beneficial to the working masses. And this fact alone will suffice to make its strength grow numerically. The party hopes to prove itself more useful to the proletariat by actually improving the lot of the workers than by frothy revolutionary phrases. It matters little what you say, it only matters what you do. (Applause).
The Romanian delegate Many explains that in Romania the large estates comprise 3/5 of the country; one fifth belongs to the state and one fifth to the peasants, who number 7 million. For lack of land of their own, the peasants become day labourers for the large landowners on whom they depend completely. The electoral system is a true image of the property relations. The voters are divided into 3 groups: the first consisting of large landowners who pay over 1000 francs in taxes; the second includes civil servants, merchants, professors, in short all those who pursue “liberal professions”; and the third is composed of the country folk. The country folk select delegations, which in turn select the deputies. The socialist movement in Romania dates from about eighteen years ago. The example of the Paris Commune was crucial for this point in time; At the same time, Russian and Polish political refugees exerted an influence that cannot be ignored. It was the student youth who first committed themselves to socialist theories. They translated the main works of socialist literature into the Romanian language and endeavored to spread them throughout the country. The center of the movement was Jaffy; the followers were mainly recruited from the educated classes.
The young party soon had access to a scientific journal and a daily paper. The authorities did not hesitate to suppress the latter; they expelled the students from the universities and dismissed professor Nadejdi, to whom 10,000 peasants had given their votes. In fact the propaganda had been carried right into the middle of the peasants, and with great success. After an uninterrupted agitation of barely 3 years, 280 delegations representing 40,000 peasant electors sent three socialist deputies to parliament. In short, the progress of socialism is such that the radicals take articles from its program in order — by strongly mixing the socialist wine with bourgeois water — to make themselves look better in the eyes of the population. In recent years the misery of the population has increased so much that discontent has finally caused the peasants to rise up. Now, to improve this situation, the socialist MPs demanded the surrender of state lands to the municipalities and generally to cooperatives which cultivate the land in common. Parliament preferred to adopt only the proposal of the Radicals that every farmer should own a small parcel of land. Since the small arable farms cannot resist competition from arable farming on a large scale, so that the large estates swallow them up, in 10 to 15 years small peasant property and its situation will be in the same situation, if not worse than today.
In Romania, as everywhere, the only remedy in the present situation is the conversion of private property into collective property. Among the industrial workers too there is an awakening of the consciousness of their rights; the recent strikes of the printers, the saddlers and the potters are proof of this. Meanwhile the authorities, inspired by the desire to get into the good books of capital, wanted to import workers from Austria. But the Austrian proletarians refused to sort out the affairs of Messers the Capitalists!
—57— The workers of all countries are demonstrating ever more the great solidarity which will liberate them and which alone can bring about the day on which the struggle against capital will achieve victory. (Lively applause.)
Citizen Ihrlinger, delegate of the Hungarian workers‘ party,[c] gives a concise overview of the situation in his home country. Having given an assurance that the socialist movement — inspired by the principles of modern socialism, contrary to what has often been said — has the international character which currently characterizes the movement throughout the world, he states that in Hungary, as in Austria, freedom exists only on paper. Every judge rules at his own discretion. The Hungarian reaction mimicked the German one, resorting to medieval decrees to beat the socialists.
The labour movement spreads mainly through the clubs. While the trade union organizations only exist in Budapest, the workers' clubs are present almost everywhere, in the small towns as well as in the villages. For a long time the Hungarian workers‘ party was towed along by the bourgeois radical party; but the representatives of this latter party have not kept their promises, the workers' party has decided to lead an independent existence and to expect anything only from itself. Socialist propaganda is made difficult by the large number of nationalities and languages in Hungary. Nevertheless the movement has advanced to the point that the divisions which have arisen in the bosom of the party have not harmed it. These divisions were inevitable as they concerned the separation of the workers‘ party from the anarchists who, largely paid for or supported by the police, brought the movement into discredit.
On the other hand, the state endeavours to kill the movement by harsh measures, trying to crush the most resolute fighters, and through these persecutions a large number of workers are kept away. Of course there is no freedom of the press for the workers. The party therefore tries to gain influence in the trade union organizations in order to instill the socialist spirit in them and gradually bring them closer to the cause. And as things stand the economic situation gives us new followers every day. As big industry develops, small industry perishes and the number of proletarians and the discontented grows ever more. The Hungarian proletariat is fighting shoulder to shoulder with the German proletariat and with that of all countries. (Applause.)
Citizen Popp, a cobbler from Budapest, declares that, contrary to the report of the previous speaker, the Hungarian movement has not developed so favourably, and at least in terms of its principles it is strongly opportunistic and is often inclined to compromise. In order to remedy this evil, he is setting about the creation of a workers' press, which for the time being consists of twenty trade journals. It is hoped that in a few years a party will exist which will reach the level of the socialist movement in general.
Anseele, the Belgian delegate who was supposed to report on the “Vooruit”, is absent. The floor is given to citizen Domela Nieumenhuis, whose appearance on the platform is greeted with thunderous applause.
Citizen Domela Nieuwenhuis describes the situation of the working class in Holland:
The economic life of a nation depends in large part on the political situation. Since in Holland the working class has no voting rights, —58— therefore it also has no legal influence on political affairs. In a word, Holland is a class state that is ruled by a plutocracy, the ominous character of which is clearly evident in all institutions.
The very oppressive taxes are designed in a ratio that is almost the opposite of the ability to pay of taxpayers. Two-fifths of them weigh heavily on the workers’ essential purchases. It is no exaggeration to say that a working class family sacrifices 10% of its income to the state, not counting municipal and other demands.
Furthermore, the hated blood tax of military service, which the rich can evade by deputizing, is borne exclusively by the working class.
Education is public, but its organization is insufficient; it is neither compulsory nor free of charge. Industrial education is almost entirely absent in Holland, and where it is available it is viewed as an utterly superfluous luxury.
The administration of justice is something Dutch workers have barely heard of. In the same way, “equality before the law” only appears on paper. Industrial arbitration courts are lacking too; disputes between employers and workers are brought before the ordinary judge, who, according to Article 1638 of our Civil Code, has to believe the employer — an outrageous proof of the disdain which the ruling class openly shows the working class.
As for the rights of association and assembly, they are recognized by the constitution. So they would actually exist if the law did not add all sorts of restrictive regulations. In addition, the police frequently abuse their authority by threatening the owners of the hall with withdrawing the license to serve liquor if they dare to allocate their premises to workers' meetings. In short, the right of association and assembly is vastly restricted, and in practice illusory.
From these facts it follows that the rights of the workers in political matters are curtailed by the law and by the narrow-mindedness of the ruling classes.
But economic slavery may be experienced even more harshly by Dutch workers. For this reason they increasingly demand not just political emancipation, but the complete transformation of society, the abolition of capitalist production: the wages system.
The economic situation of the Dutch workers is much the same as that of the workers in the other countries. Private property in its present form, that is, the egoistic private interest of individuals, forms the basis of society everywhere; and the same causes produce the same effects.
The wages of Dutch workers are quite as low as their working day is long. In addition, they are continually stricken by the thousands of tortures of the sweating system, the truck system, and arbitrary fines. Female and child labour at extremely low wages is very much the mode. Work stoppages are common and almost chronic in most industries. The desire for a social transformation is becoming more and more general, and the very justified dissatisfaction is clearly evident in Holland in the number of unemployed people in the big cities as well as in relatively significant strikes. Of the latter, we mention the strikes in the textile industry of Twente and in the peat digging districts of Friesland, which broke out last year and concluded in success. The Twente strike revealed the deep misery and crushing slavery under which the workers of this industrial district were —59— languishing, and what the capitalists have called the “workers’ paradise” has been shown to be in truth a workers’ hell.
It was the same with the strikes in the peat districts, which had the purpose of raising wages and the abolition of the truck system which is rampant here and in other parts of Holland.
Citizen Domela Nieuwenhuis, the first and so far the only socialist MP, took the opportunity to propose a law which had the purpose of ensuring that workers would be free to dispose of their wages. Incidentally, this proposal was very badly received by the bourgeois MPs; they are enemies of every state intervention unless it relates to their own interest or that of their class. Indeed, the Dutch bourgeoisie even tried to make themselves look like the workers’ protectors; and their deputy, the Minister of Justice, for his part, following the example of Domela Nieuwenhuis, introduced a legislative proposal which competed with the socialist one.
It is extremely regrettable that the Dutch Government neglects statistics so much. Statistics on the condition of the workers, such as exist, for example, in America, are completely absent in Holland. The speaker is therefore not able to give officially established figures about wages, working hours, etc. etc. On the other hand, he can provide some data that have emerged from private surveys.
As already mentioned, female and child labour is very widespread. You can find them not only in the stores, shops and tailors’ workshops, but also in weaving mills, sugar refineries, tobacco factories, printing works, in the pottery industry, in bookbinderies, brickworks, candlemakers, in cafes and pubs. In general, it must be said that women and children are increasingly used for work wherever muscle strength is not essential.
The Dutch worker works an average of 12 hours a day; the working day in the textile industry is 11 hours.
The average wage for the whole of Holland can be set at a maximum of 7 guilders (1 guilder = 1 Mk. 68 Pfg.) per week. It fluctuates in certain occupations and industries, but the average daily wage does not rise above 9-10 guilders a week in the big cities. In the small towns and in the country the wages are considerably lower.
In the textile industry three-fourths of the workers earn no more than 7 guilders, often they only earn 4 1/2 to 6 guilders a week. The situation of the workers in the peat pits and in the main branches of agriculture is even more pitiful. In the rich area of Friesland, for example, a worker is paid 70 cents (1 Fr. 10 cm. French money = 88 Pfg.) for a working day of 14 hours with 1 1/2 hours of rest. And that is in good times! In winter he earns no more than 35 cents (about 58 pfennigs) a day. This rich, fertile land has almost as much misery as Ireland!
There is nothing more heartbreaking than the lot of our coastal fishermen, who are being exploited in the most brutal way in the world by the ship owners and fishing entrepreneurs. Happy is the one who is granted a price of 8 guilders per barrel. From this sum, the crew of 9 fishermen for each boat receives only 1 guilder 65 cents, while the ship owner receives the rest of the amount, i.e. keeps 6 guilders 35 cents for himself.
It follows from this brief survey that the condition of the workers in Holland is dire. It is almost impossible for them to provide food, clothing and housing for themselves and their families. They are forced to deny themselves any other expense, and so they forego any distraction or any satisfaction of intellectual needs. Capitalism weighs on them like a yoke of lead. Holland is a —60— thoroughly free-trade country in the sense that the capitalist is free to exploit the worker without limits, so that he is in reality “liable to tallage and boonwork neverending”.[d]
After having had to detail the sad political and social situation of the Dutch worker, we are pleased, before the end of our report, to be able to state a reassuring fact of undeniable importance: namely, the awakening of the workers in the last ten years, an awakening as a result of which they organized themselves and developed radical programs. They have understood how to make use of the experience of their brothers in other countries; they have understood quite well that certain attempts to improve the lot of the workers such as the cooperative system, the Tantième (profit-sharing) system, mutual benefit funds, savings banks, avance funds etc, etc are nothing more than expensive and clumsy botched household remedies (palliative methods); so they said to themselves: since the evil lies in the basis of the existing society, this basis itself must be changed.
The workers are gradually coming to the realization that they have nothing to expect from their masters, whether they be Conservatives, Liberals or Radicals, but that they have only themselves to depend on. They are organizing themselves more and more into a pure and fully independent workers’ party with its own political and economic program; and it can be said that the reactionary workers’ parties like the Mutual Insurance Society "Patrimonium" and the general union of Dutch workers are being pushed aside by the advanced working-class elements.
Only the Social Democratic League[e] can proudly boast of a truly remarkable development today. It has a publication, at first appearing three times a week, the “Recht voor Allen” (Rights for All), which now appears daily. The party holds public meetings everywhere and supplies the country with brochures and pamphlets. And it is to this organized party that Dutch workers direct their hopes for the future. We need no other proof of their influence than the persecution of the government, which has several times sentenced members to prison terms, and even to forced labour.
In the political field, the socialists demand the right to vote for all; in the economic field their goal is the takeover of the means of production by society and organization of public services for the benefit of the community. As a transitional measure they attach great value to the reduction of working hours by means of labour protection legislation. While we are convinced that the complete emancipation of the working class is only possible through the conversion of private property into common property, we consider it important to declare that an international movement for legislative regulation of working hours will find in Holland ardent champions and the sympathy of a working class conscious of its interests.
All of this leads us to expect a coalition of governments for the purpose of combating the demands of the workers. We shall applaud any progress which aims at the international unification of the workers, for this alone is able to offer a counterweight to the machinations of governments. We do not look for our strength in the founding of great cooperatives, but rather in the intellectual development of the worker. That is the reason why our party has published a large number of brochures and books. We have translations of almost all economists in Europe and America. We consider it necessary that the workers first know what is to be done; only then will they actually do what is necessary.
—61— We know very well that we, who inhabit a small country, cannot be the vanguard of the revolution, which can only reach maturity and victory in a large country. But this revolution must have already taken place in our brains, and from now on we can give the assurance that we will be at our post and doing our duty. Our small people, which the tyrant Alba [f]called a “people of peasants”, but which proved that it was able to resist a people of iron-clad knights, which has even triumphed over the elements of nature — it will also know how to defeat the bourgeoisie and will not rest until it has established the rule of freedom. Brothers, we will win or die under the banner of social democracy; and we will continue to hold that banner high!
(The assembly repeatedly gives its enthusiastic applause.) —
Citizen Petersen then explains the situation of workers in Denmark. This is not essentially different from that of the other countries. In general, the petty bourgeoisie and small industry predominate. Meanwhile, for some years now, big industry has also been on the rise, pushing small industry into the background. The capitalists have already introduced the truck system in Denmark.
Wages are very low, crises and stagnation occur frequently. There are no official statistics on labour relations. However, according to known testimony, it can be calculated that there are 70,000 workers in Copenhagen whose average annual earnings are 11-1200 francs; 45,000 workers in the provincial towns, with an average annual wage of 800 francs; 133,000 workers employed in the country earn an average of no more than 500 francs.
If these wages are compared with the average price of food, it is found that 78 per cent of urban workers have a difference of 500 francs between the wages they receive and the amount required for their essential needs.
The workers are organized in trade unions, 150 in number, which are linked to one another through their bureaux to form a centralised organization, the spirit of which unfortunately leaves much to be desired. In addition to the syndicates (trade unions and professional associations), we should also mention the organization of the Social Democratic Party to which around 80 electoral associations and discussion clubs belong.
The socialist press is represented by the Copenhagen “Social-Demokraten”, which has around 20,000 subscribers, and appears in 4 daily provincial issues. To these one can add an independent socialist paper, “Arbejtern” (The Worker).
Since the Danish workers’ movement arose in a petty bourgeois milieu, it necessarily retained a petty bourgeois character, which can be identified in various ways. A meeting house and a cooperative bakery were based on shares. The latter is a veritable caricature of the Ghent Cooperative Bakery, so it cannot be seen as anything else than a private industrial company that pays shareholders an annual dividend. In reality there is nothing socialist about the whole enterprise other than the party money with which it was founded, and the names of the managers who are all party leaders.
The right of association and assembly is guaranteed to workers by law, but that in no way prevents messers the capitalists from finding means to make the exercise of this right as difficult as possible. Danish workers have the right to vote from the age of 30 unless they receive poor relief from public funds.
—62— The workers usually take a lively part in the elections, and have already succeeded in sending two representatives of the party to parliament; at the moment one of their electees is sitting. So far we have to concede that the workers’ party has gone with the petty bourgeoisie and has not broken off its relations with the bourgeois parties to this day. Efforts are made to defend this mode of action by stating that a relative majority is decisive for the outcome of elections (except for runoff elections). It is clear that the socialists in league with any bourgeois party can never win anything from an election campaign, nor will they be able to pursue socialist agitation as if they remained independent. A socialist party which goes together with the petty bourgeoisie, is more or less bound to it in its political activity. In this way it makes itself the champion and defender of bourgeois institutions, for example by helping to provide credit for the small industrialists. Fortunately, however, a return to principles and an opposition to previous tactics has been making itself felt among the workers of late. The best evidence for the advance of the movement is the fact that this movement has three representatives at this congress. (Applause.)
Citizen Plechanoff, elected by the Russian Social Democrats, spoke as follows:
Since the number of speakers at this congress is very large and they have only a short time to present the political and economic situation in their respective countries, I shall give as brief a picture of the workers’ movement in Russia as possible.
One might be surprised to see representatives of Russia at this congress, a country where the movement is certainly not as advanced as in other European countries. But we Russian socialists thought that Russia should not keep itself alone apart from the workers of the rest of Europe, but that the mutual convergence of all workers could only exert a beneficial influence on the socialist movement of the whole world.
The fateful role which Russia, monarchical and official Russia, has played up to the present day in the history of Europe is unfortunately only too well known. The Czars, in truth crowned policemen, regarded it as their sacred duty to support the reactionaries of all countries, from Prussia to Spain and Italy. We do not need to point out the role which Czar Nicholas of unhappy memory played in the memorable events of 1848.
That is why the victory of the revolutionary movement in Russia would be the victory of all European workers.
The point is to know how and under what conditions the revolutionary movement in Russia can achieve victory. That is only possible — this is our hard and fast conviction, citizens! — if the Russian revolutionaries know how to win the trust and participation of the people themselves. As long as the movement is only the work of enthusiasts and the student youth, it may be dangerous for the Czars in terms of their personal security, but not for Czarism as a state institution.
If we want to break the power of Czarism once and for all, we have to rely on an element that is revolutionary in a different sense than that of the student youth — and this element, which is not lacking in Russia, is the class of the proletariat, which through its economic situation and by the nature of things is revolutionary in itself.
Certain political economists who suffer from an overly fantastic imagination, which testifies more to their goodwill than to their knowledge of the facts, have presented Russia as —63— a kind of European China whose economic situation has nothing in common with that of western Europe. That is completely false. The old economic structure of Russia is now in a state of complete disintegration. The rural community that has been talked about so much — even in the socialist press! — and which in truth formed the basis of despotism, this rural community is more and more an object of capitalist exploitation in the hands of the rich farmers. In the meantime the poor are leaving the steppes to go to the big cities and industrial centers, where factories are being built that wipe out the small, once so flourishing domestic industry.
The Russian government is doing all it can to aggravate this state of affairs and accelerate the development of capitalism. We socialists can only applaud these efforts, because in this way Czarism is preparing its own overthrow.
The Russian industrial proletariat, whose consciousness is beginning to awaken, will finally break the yoke of despotism, and on that day you will see direct representatives taking place in your congresses alongside the delegates of the more advanced countries. It is our task, in anticipation of this, to enthusiastically embrace your cause and to spread the ideas of social democracy among the Russian workers by all means at our disposal.
In conclusion, I repeat and emphasize: the revolutionary movement will triumph in Russia as a workers' movement, or it will never triumph.
(These few words from citizen Plekhanoff arouse great enthusiasm, and the Russian delegate leaves the platform to resounding applause.)
The Norwegian delegate Jeppesen harks back to the beginnings of the labour movement in his country, i.e. to five years ago. In spite of its great youth, the movement there is already in the second period of its development, that of persecution and oppression. This fact only proves to the speaker that the movement is already strong and purposeful enough to instil fear in the ruling and possessing classes. The workers’ movement, which Citizen Jeppesen has the honour to represent, has a thoroughly socialist and revolutionary character. The proletariat of his country is decisive and does not put its hopes in the palliative means that are often recommended, whatever labels they may come with. Likewise, it does not believe in the effectiveness of parliamentary reforms, since it has found that the laws that exist in Norway, otherwise liberal in form, are of no use to the workers. Meanwhile, the Norwegian Socialist Party has decided to join with the proletariat of other countries in demanding international labour legislation, since this demand is an excellent means of agitation and propaganda. In addition, the Socialist workers’ party of Norway has already introduced a labour protection law in their country's parliament. A special commission has been charged with examining this bill, which will soon be discussed in the National Assembly. Nevertheless, the workers do not expect anything from the House, they do not expect any advantages from laws which are always adapted to the advantage of the stronger. Capitalism always compels the worker to submit; and therefore the workers cannot count on anyone but themselves. (Applause)
At this moment an incident arose involving the delegate of the “United Brotherhood, Iowa” (United States) — Citizen Ahles. After being absent twice when he was supposed to speak, he was —64— re-registered for his report at the same time as Kirchner, delegate of the “United German Trade Unions” (Vereinigten deutschen Gewerkschaften) of New York, who was also entrusted with a report on America. It was purely by chance that the chairman wanted to give Kirchner the floor first, whereupon Ahles, feeling offended, left the congress, protesting against the operation of the Bureau and the way in which he had been treated.
Citizen Vaillant explains to the assembly the cause of this error on the part of Citizen Ahles and sends him an explanatory note inviting him to come back to speak. Ahles keeps to his decision and, through the mediation of a friend, repeats his protest.
The floor was then given to Citizen Merlino, an Italian delegate,[g] who explained that the movement in Italy is composed of two currents: there is the faction of the anarchist socialists and that of the parliamentary or étatiste[2] socialists. But this distinction is more apparent than real, because the parliamentary socialists are also in principle anarchists, even if in particular cases they are (in fact) in favour of legality. The real anarchists are anarchists both in principle and in deed. That is the difference. However, this difference leads to a very peculiar attitude on the part of the government towards the two factions. The anarchists are called wrongdoers ( malfattori ), a slander they do not reject, preferring to go hand in glove with small thieves rather than the big thieves who hold power and ruin the country. As a result, they are mistreated, persecuted and punished as wrongdoers; they are sentenced to years of imprisonment. On the other hand, when it comes to the parliamentary socialists, the government puts on kid gloves to attack them. Of course there are also trials and persecutions against them, but the condemnations are only for appearances, they are not carried out. An example of this is the one that affected citizen Andrea Costa, which was a risible condemnation.
Here citizen Jules Guesde interrupts the speaker to tell him not to attack a fellow delegate. Citizen Merlino goes on to say that the program of the Italian parliamentary socialists was quite similar to that of the Marxists, declaring that the task of the working class was to conquer political power and property in order to socialize it.
The anarchists do not share this view. They are convinced that such a historical development would lead to a new class rule. The predominance of the ruling classes of today would be replaced by the predominance of the working class. But government cannot follow everyone’s wishes. If on the morrow of the revolution power lay in the hands of the working class, this whole change would be limited to the bosses being recruited from the workers instead of from the Bourgeoisie; but there would still be bosses, a board of directors, a bureaucracy, and we would soon return to our present state of affairs.
The Chairman asks the speaker to stick to the agenda, reminding him that the Congress had not met to listen to well-known theses about the future.
Citizen Merlino replies that, on the one hand, he cannot deny his convictions and, on the other hand, that anarchists had given him a mandate —65— to attend the congress so that he might expound theories that they believed to be true. The Congress wants to deal with the question of labour legislation. Is there socialism in that? By adopting such an agenda, Congress has shown that it is not socialist, because it wants to deal with something proposed by governments. Governments want reforms too, but socialists must not follow in their footsteps. Making yourself the proponent of labour legislation is an anti-socialist, bourgeois task, and completely absurd on the part of revolutionaries. When they embark on the path of reform, they are working to wreck their cause, which actually already bears the seeds of corruption and ruin. Socialism will show more and more that it is incapable of realizing the emancipation of humanity; its death will therefore not be mourned. Once it has been buried and its partisans have disappeared, others, the anarchists, will unfurl the banner upon which they have inscribed the complete liberation of mankind, and they will realize that better society towards which their efforts are directed. —
This discussion, applauded by a few English and French delegates, was frequently interrupted on the part of the great majority of the assembly with protestations, ironic cat-calls, and signs of great amusement. Repeated complaints had been raised demanding that the speaker be withdrawn because anarchist theories were more than well known and were just wasting precious time. The anarchists demanded a complete translation of the speech by Merlino, “who understands German and English very well, and so is in a position to check the accuracy of the translation.” Otherwise they threatened to raise a commotion.
The Chairman points out that the Bureau's translations are necessarily abbreviated and summarized, but that they are always accurate. Citizeness Aveling remarks that Merlino speaks fluent English and German, so the easiest thing is for him to translate his speech into these languages himself. This happens. The German translation is applauded, but the delegates declare that their applause relates exclusively to the translation, not to the content of the speech.
After calm has been restored, citizen Iglesias, delegate of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (Partido Socialista Obrero Español ), takes the floor. He starts his report by greeting the congress on behalf of the Socialist Workers’ Party of Spain. The class-conscious proletariat on the other side of the Pyrenees sends a warm handshake to its brothers from other countries brought together by this congress.
The economic and social position of the Spanish working class is much the same as that of the workers in the other countries of Europe and America. People have got used to seeing the Spaniards as a people of politicians and beneficiaries of “Pronunciamientos”.[3] The workers are supposed to be submerged in an indifference that is close to stupidity. They work little, eat even less, but live happily in the sun during the day and under the starry sky at night, where technology and big industry have not yet found their way into the world. All of that is pure fantasy. The worker is just as unhappy, just as miserable, in Spain as in any other country. He is just as exploited, just as oppressed in the factories, in the large workshops, in the mines, and even more so in agriculture, where a large number of wage-workers suffer from the lack of the essential necessities of life, and where they are at times decimated by a fatal —66— lack of employment. It is true that capitalist concentration has not yet reached Spain in its highest degree of development; but it is on the way. On the other hand, what small industry and retail trade still exists in Spain is far from being shrouded, as in certain other countries, in a patriarchal character of simplicity and good-naturedness which makes it bearable, but is so greedy, so insatiable and so indecent that if it were in their power the workers would rush to make it disappear entirely. Indeed, they are convinced that capitalism, once centralized, would be much easier to combat and replace. In this naturally different situation, which makes our bourgeoisie a satellite of the nations marching at the head of the modern capitalist movement, the Spanish workers could do no less than follow the movement of defense and emancipation begun by the workers of other countries; for the same causes produce the same effects. So when the International Workers’ Association called for workers all over the world to unite around a single flag, it found very well-prepared soil in Spain. The ideas and plans of the organization met with the warmest reception there, and after a few months the workers belonging to the International numbered in the thousands. In almost all large cities, and even in many small ones, there were organized sections of trades united in local federations. A Federal Council which brought together the contributions and corresponded regularly with the General Council in London was active in Madrid for about two years.
The Paris Revolution of March 18, 1871 gave a new impetus to this movement, and the fall of the Commune and the terrible reprisals that followed, tore a cry of pain and anger from every worker’s breast. Spanish workers declared their solidarity with the defeated Commune as they would have done with the victorious Commune. For them this was the first and undeniable act of the class struggle. Not a year has passed since then without the workers, even many of those who did not take part in the workers’ organizations, celebrating the anniversary of March 18 as of their own revolution and condemning the cruelty of the French bourgeoisie during the bloody week. The banner established by the first workers’ revolution has become our flag. Everyone here knows the causes of the split in the International which, with the help of Reaction, ended with its being dissolved. The present socialist party was formed from its scattered parts. It is not yet very strong, its adherents are not yet numerous, but it is firmly and permanently organized, it counts groups in the capitals of Spain, in all the manufacturing and mining centers, and this organization is making steady progress. Its program is that of the French Socialist workers’ party, the German Social Democracy and the American workers’ party, i.e. it is based on the economic principles established by our unforgettable and lamented Karl Marx. It follows the political guideline that he always advised: struggle in all areas against the hostile class, against the bourgeoisie, and complete separation of the workers’ party from all bourgeois parties.
The Spanish socialist workers' council, whose real existence as a political party has dates from only three years ago, held its first congress on August 23, 1888 in Barcelona . The party's program was then confirmed, approved and an international committee appointed, which is currently based in Madrid. It was decided there, among other things, that the Spanish socialist workers’ party should appoint a representative —67— to send to the next international workers’ congress in Paris — the present congress — and to give it a special mandate to demand the creation of an international committee.
Finally, one must not forget that in addition to the actual Socialist Party, which, although composed exclusively of workers, can also include elements originating from the bourgeoisie in its bosom, as the old International did, there is also a powerful organization of oppositional societies (professional associations and trade unions) which we call trades societies, and which in our country are not united with the socialist party. Our party encourages and assists the development of these trade organizations. It also works with all its might to support the inevitable stoppages of work, for it has always regarded these as an inevitability for the worker struggling for his living. Their efforts have been crowned with victory more than once, e.g. in the great and victorious walk-out of the Madrid typesetters three years ago. In spite of all this, the socialist workers’ party has deemed it necessary to make a divorce between itself and the industrial organizations for the moment. A day will come, the speaker firmly believes, when an amalgamation of these bodies will take place of its own accord, effortlessly, since their cause is a shared one, as is the goal which the former and the latter both pursue. “And on this day, which is not far away,” said Citizen Iglesias in conclusion, “we will be a power and you will be able to count on us. The Spanish proletariat will continue to know how to do its duty; our bourgeoisie is just as rotten and oppressive as yours, but it is more ignorant and lazy, and it will not take too much effort to overcome it.” (Applause.)
Citizen Mesa, Spanish delegate, after translating this speech into French, adds that his comrade and friend Iglesias, in his humility, failed to speak of the newspaper "il Socialista" in Madrid. He himself, delegate of the founding group of this journal, had to declare that this vigilant organ was one of the most powerful levers of organization and socialist propaganda in Spain. Its life, comparatively long, has shown devotion and energy. The journal is written by workers, is set by workers free of charge, and is excellently administered by workers. (Great applause.)
Citizen Houst, delegate of Romance Switzerland, outlines the oppositional movement he represents in a brief discussion. In French-speaking Switzerland, he says, the movement is more social and economic than political. Enjoying comparatively greater freedom than in other countries, the population there is less revolutionary because it is less oppressed.
Socialism, even anarchism, can develop freely among us. The movement towards an international labour movement will allow us to train cadres and organize ourselves better. In the Jura Mountains the population has declared itself in favour of socialist ideas. They want work in the factories to be regulated and the employers to have to pay in cash. Thanks to the situation and to propaganda, the ideas of socialism are developing and taking deeper root. We too in Switzerland will not flag in the struggle against capital, and we will endeavor to constantly improve our organization. (Applause.)
After the end of this report, the session closed at around 9:30 in the evening.
1. The number is considerably less according to the most recent reliable records - 600,000 at most.
2.The word comes from the French état, the state, and is used by the Anarchist to denote any trend not leading to the “annihilation” of the state.
3. Pronunciamento in Spanish is an attempted rebellion, which must involve the proclamation of a new government.
a. Paul Brandt (1852-1910), Portestant Clergyman and one of the leading figures in the Grütli Verein.
b. The Socialist Labor Party, at that time split into two factions, a 'Lasallean' faction led by Bushe and Rosenberg, and a 'Marxist' one. Bushe was also editor of the Workmens’ Advocate.
c. Antan Ihrlinger was one of the founder members of the General Workers' Party of Hungary, also referred to as the Hungarian General Labour Party. It was led by Leo Frankel, who was chairing this session.
d. Taillable et corvéable à merci in French; zins- und frohnpflichtig ist zum Gotterbarmen in German. There is no direct equivalent in English, but the speaker is suggesting that for all the liberal rhetoric of the capitalist the actual position of the worker is no better than that of a mediæval serf.
e. The Sociaal-Democratische Bond, founded by Domela Nieuwenhuis himself in 1881.
f. The Duke of Alba, known as the Iron Duke was the governor of the Netherlands from 1567-73. He tried, and eventually failed, to suppress the Dutch Protestant revolt against Spanish Catholic rule.
g. Francesco Saverio Merlino was an Italian lawyer and anarchist who had spent much of the last 5 years in exile in London, where he was loosely associated with the anarchist communists of the Freedom group.