• Historische Drucke
• Editions-Projekt
• Literatur von/über B.
  • Literatur von/über B.
    • Übersicht
    • Band 1
    • Band 2
    • Band 3
    • Band 4
    • Band 5
    • Band 6
  • Weitere Primärliteratur
    • deutsch
    • englisch
    • französisch
    • italienisch
    • russisch
    • spanisch
    •                                                 
    • Oeuvres complètes [CD-ROM]
  • Sekundärliteratur
    • Bibliografien
    • Biografien
      • Überblick
      • Nettlau: Michael Bakunin. Eine Biographie
      • Kamiński: Bakunin. Życie i myśl
    • Sammelbände
      • Überblick
      • Bakunin Almanach – Band 1
    • Spezialstudien
      • Überblick
      • Eckhardt: Von der Dresdner Mairevolution zur Ersten Internationale
      • Eckhardt: The First Socialist Schism
• Forschung
  • Čejchan, Václav
  • Eckhardt, Wolfgang
  • Kloosterman, Jaap
  • Lehning, Arthur
  • Nettlau, Max
  • Nikolaevskij, Boris Ivanovič
  • Pirumova, Natal’ja Michajlovna
  •                                                 
  • Archive
• Links
• Kontakt

• ›Ausgewählte Schriften‹
• Weitere Primärliteratur
• Sekundärliteratur

• Bibliografien
• Biografien
• Sammelbände
• Spezialstudien

Wolfgang Eckhardt:

The First Socialist Schism

Bakunin vs. Marx in the International Working Men’s Association

Translated by Robert M. Homsi, Jesse Cohn, Cian Lawless, Nestor McNab, and Bas Moreel

Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2016. [X], 604 pp.

ISBN 978-1-62963-042-7 · USD 38.95 (Paperback) · USD 8.95 (e-Book)

Order at PM Press

Product sheet from PM Press

 Google Books Preview (layout different from print version)

THE FIRST SOCIALIST SCHISM chronicles the conflicts in the International Working Men’s Association (the First International, 1864–1876/77), which represents an important milestone in the history of political ideas and socialist theory. In defending their autonomy, federations in the International became aware of what separated them from the social democratic movement that relied on the establishment of national labor parties and the conquest of political power. The split that followed, between centralist party politics and the federalist grassroots movement, was a decisive moment in the history of political ideas. The separate movements in the International — which later developed into social democracy, communism, and anarchism — found their greatest advocates in Mikhail Bakunin and Karl Marx. But the significance of this alleged clash of titans is largely a modern invention. It was not the rivalry between two arch-enemies or a personal vendetta based on mutual resentment that made the conflict between Bakunin and Marx so important but rather the schism between parliamentary party politics aiming to conquer political power and social-revolutionary concepts.

Instead of focusing exclusively on what Marx and Bakunin said, many other contributions to this debate are examined, making this the first reconstruction of a dispute that gripped the entire organization. This book also sets new standards when it comes to source material, taking into account documents from numerous archives and libraries that have previously gone unnoticed or were completely unknown.

* * *

Reviews / Commentary:

• Bert Altena (›De AS‹, no. 198, summer 2017)

 

• International Review of Social History (Apr 2017):

This study is a comprehensive chronological account of the rift within the International Workingmen’s Association (the “First International”, 1864–1877) between the advocates of working-class political parties (Marx and his followers) and the antiauthoritarian revolutionary socialists (Bakunin and other anarchists). In addition to focusing on the roles of Marx and Bakunin, many other contributions to this debate are examined. The author has based this work on numerous archives and libraries that were previously unnoticed. He also provides a detailed account of the International’s Congress of The Hague (September 1872), including the background, sequence of events and international reactions.

International Review of Social History, Cambridge, vol. 62, no. 1, April 2017, p. 169

 

• Dave Fryett (dissidentvoice.org, 20 Jan 2017)

I recently read Wolfgang Eckhardt’s The First Socialist Schism, and what I discovered disturbed me. A friend had told me that in it Karl Marx accused Mikhail Bakunin of wanting to be the dictator of the First International. The slapstick incongruity of the charge piqued my interest, and left me wondering if perhaps it were Groucho and not Karl who was its author. What I learned, however, was anything but amusing.

I knew that there had been a clash between the two, and that it grew personal, and that the conflict led to a split in the International Working Men’s Association [IWMA]. I knew that Marx had made allegations that few believed then and fewer do now. I also knew that each man had shamed himself with ethnic bigotry: the Jew for the Slav, and the Slav for the Jew. I knew that each accused the other of being an agent of the bourgeoisie. What I hadn’t yet encountered was the visceral, primitive hatred Marx held for Bakunin, and the Machiavellian depths to which he and Friedrich Engels fell in order to banish their despised rival, even at the expense of the IWMA itself.

Marx’ private correspondence is littered with abuse. He refers to Bakunin as a “savage,” an “idiot,” “ignoramus,” “charlatan,” “beast,” and worse. He continually asserts that Bakunin’s positions are “hollow fancies” devoid of theoretical or analytical value, “empty phrase-mongering.” He also bemoans Bakunin’s lack of formal education, an odd stance for Marx to take as his friend, collaborator, and patron, Friedrich Engels, has less. Reviewing his clash with Bakunin, Marx emerges as a man with an unhealthy, corrupting obsession, which led him to act in a reprehensibly unprincipled manner.

Still somewhat incredulous, despite Eckhardt’s careful documentation, I wanted confirmation. So I read Robert Graham’s We Do Not Fear Anarchy, We Invoke It, and found it there. The authors, like me, are anarchists, and are quite sympathetic to Bakunin. Nevertheless, the cases their respective books make are persuasive, as I believe you will agree. [...] Never have I read anything which gave me so much to reconsider.

https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/01/the-madness-of-karl-marx/

 

• Florian Eitel (›Cahiers d’histoire du mouvement ouvrier‹, no. 33, 2017)

 

• Ian Downey (goodreads.com, 11 Jan 2017):

Fantastic book, one of the best I’ve ever read. It’s scholarly, yes (with 182 pages of bibliography, notes, and index); it’s largely a sourcebook, a series of huge verbatim block quotes, sometimes several pages long, excerpted from the original historical documents, written by the principle characters, strung along together into a narrative.

But it reads like fascinating page-turner of a novel, almost a gossipy soap-opera. I could not stop reading it, and now that it’s over, I miss it. I almost want to read it all over again.

Of course, that’s not the point of the book at all – just the opposite. Wolfgang Eckhardt’s central thesis is that the split in the International Workingmen’s Association was not simply a personal conflict between two titanic personalities, Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, but a complex political struggle among many different factions, vying over serious questions of internal organization and policy, including, most importantly, the question of whether to form national political parties and participate in democratic, parliamentary elections (Marx said yes, Bakunin said no; but there were many complex shades and nuances to this question, and many positions taken by different federations and individuals within the IWMA).

But along the way, the story gets so juicy that you can’t helped being sucked into the drama of it all. Long story short, there are some pretty shady aspects of both sides. Both were scheming, in a fairly machiavellian way, against each other. And there were third parties, like the notorious Becker, who were playing both sides off of each other for their own purposes. In addition, nationalistic feelings and ethnic tensions entered into the conflict – and Bakunin notoriously resorted to anti-Semitism. But there’s no question that the vast majority of bad behavior here is on the side of Marx, Engels, and the partisans of the General Council, who committed one act of slimy dishonesty after another... until the whole thing blew up in their faces.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It is as philosophically enriching as it is addictive to read.

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1875212795

 

• Marcin Anglart (›Syndikalisten‹, Dec 2016):

It may seem tedious to return once again to the 1800s for a study of the personalities, feuds and organizational experiments that shaped the young labor movement. But when a book like Wolfgang Eckhardt’s The First Socialist Schism appears, the historian in us awakes inevitably.

The book is not only an extremely thorough description of the infamous years of the First International, but also an important reminder of the heated debates around organizational principles. Despite the subtitle, it outlines a broad movement beyond the big names; a movement that, with much energy and autonomy, took on the task of organizing a resistance against both state repression and increasing capitalist exploitation.

Eckhardt delivers a book packed with excerpts from congressional records, mail correspondence and newspaper articles – of the book’s roughly 600 pages, the bibliography and the footnotes make up almost 200. Besides providing all these details, the author also manages to visualize the drama and political games surrounding the International in a gripping way, making it difficult to put the book down.

Somewhat roughly hewn, there are two tendencies butting against each other, the authoritarian fraction of Marx and Engels on the one hand, and the libertarian fraction with high-profile figures like Bakunin and Guillaume. The former aims to centralize more power in the London-based General Council and advocates mandatory participation in parliamentary elections, while the latter advocates a more autonomous and federalist orientation with emphasis on self-organized unions instead of parliamentary politics – a position that can be named the embryo of what would soon be known as revolutionary syndicalism.

The personal undertones of the conflict are indeed disappointing, but they were not as central as often believed. Insofar as they had real effects on the International, it was primarily in the form of Marx’ and Engels’ increasingly paranoid attitude toward Bakunin, who was considered to be behind everything that did not go the way of the General Council. In their increasingly frenetic smear attempts they alienated themselves not only completely from southern European federations, but finally even lost the support of more neutral groupings, which – not least thanks to the exemplary mediation by James Guillaume – joined the libertarian wing.

When the International practically split during the dire and burlesque Congress of the Hague in 1872, it basically led to an implosion of the General Council, where some disinterested German Social Democrats and small groups from various other countries had more delegates combined than the federations representing the libertarian current.

All in all, this is a book which is crowded with facts and which not only gives an insight into an infected and partly personal conflict, but also says a lot about the different movements, about organizational principles and views on autonomy. At the same time it is heartwarming to soak up some of the energy, solidarity and optimism that pervaded the labor movement’s pioneers.

In conclusion, the words uttered by Rafael Farga Pellicer during the Spanish Federation’s founding congress exemplify the prevailing spirit well: “We want justice and therefore we want that the rule of capital, the church and the state cease to exist in order to build upon their ruins the government of all – anarchy, the free federation of free associations of workers.”

Translated from the Swedish original: Syndikalisten. Medlemstidning för SAC - Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation, Stockholm, no. 6, December 2016, p. 14

 

• Fuchow (reddit.com, 2 Nov 2016):

Thanks for sharing, I’m a third of the book through already. Incredibly well documented, so very refreshing against the hordes of tankies parroting slander ... Some great prognostic moments are Bakunin’s statements supporting feminism and against intellectual property, and when the Jura section resolved that cooperative work would be the economic system of the future.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/4zfim0/the_first_socialist_schism_bakunin_vs_marx_in_the/d9idcjj/

 

• Swedish Labour Movement’s Archives and Library (Book Tips, 29 Sep 2016):

For those who want to deepen their knowledge regarding the complex schism that arose between these two giants and their supporters during the International there is now Wolfgang Eckhardt’s impressive book, translated excellently from German to English. The reader is getting a meticulously detailed account of the development and the political context surrounding the conflict between Marx and Bakunin, which reached its climax in 1872. The diligence with which Eckhardt has worked on this project is testified not least by the fact that a third of the book consists of bibliography, notes and references.

Translated from the Swedish original: http://www.arbark.se/2016/09/boktips-september-2016/

 

• Albin Planinc (ilmanifesto.info, 16 Sep 2016):

For those who want to start from the beginning, there is an e-book just available that reconstructs with care and diligence the clash between “authoritarians” (Marx) and anarchists (Bakunin) in the First International: “The First Socialist Schism: Bakunin vs. Marx in the International Working Men’s Association” by Wolfgang Eckhardt. Marx does not make a very good figure ... and Bakunin seem to play an almost marginal role. It was not only a personal conflict (Marx believed the International to be his domain, and he feared that Bakunin would rob it) but a collective clash between two different conceptions of political action in the labour movement. For those who have uncritically adopted the communists’ sacred vision about the conflict and about anarchism, it is an excellent opportunity to go into greater depth and re-evaluate, also considering today’s situation and the future prospects of the left.

Translated from the Italian original: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ilmanifesto/il_lessico_dellanarchismo/oldest/

 

• Robert Graham (Anarchism Weblog, 8 Sep 2016):

Wolfgang Eckhardt’s comprehensive account of the split in the International Workingmen’s Association (the “First International” – IWMA) between the advocates of working class political parties (Marx and his followers) and the anti-authoritarian revolutionary socialists (anarchists), entitled The First Socialist Schism: Bakunin vs. Marx in the International Working Men’s Association, has finally been published by PM Press. Although more narrowly focused than my book, ‘We Do Not Fear Anarchy – We Invoke It’: The First International and the Origins of the Anarchist Movement, Eckhardt’s book meticulously documents how Marx and his relatively small coterie of supporters tried to turn the International from a pluralist association of workers’ organizations with differing views regarding social change into a monolithic organization committed to the formation of national “working class” political parties whose ultimate object was the conquest of state power. Instead, Marx only succeeded in splitting the International, with the majority of its members and sections re-establishing the International along anti-authoritarian lines, and the Marxist rump soon expiring, with its seat of power being nominally transferred to New York.

https://robertgraham.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/andre-leo-against-hierarchy-from-the-first-socialist-schism/

 

• Cetian (reddit.com, 24 Aug 2016):

Since I am dropping a ~600 page book on you, I thought I’d preface it with why I think it is relevant. This is basically a brand new and thoroughly researched work exploring the dealings of the First International, from an anarchist perspective. Admittedly, it is for those that enjoy historical detail, but really, if you’re not closely familiar with this particular part of socialist history, it is a quite mind blowing exposition of the ideas, personalities and practices of those early socialist organisations. I cannot recommend it enough for those with an interest in what men with beards did and said some 150 years ago. Some things of note:

• Marx, Engels, and their associates, were obsessed with parliamentary politics. I’ve sometimes heard arguments about the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or formation of “political parties” in Marx’s writings being interpreted in a pretty much anarchist fashion, because there were few systems of parliamentary politics around in Marx’s days (so he didn’t mean it that way, it is said). Well, you don’t need this book to know that Marx indeed championed parliamentary politics, but it really drives home how engaged he was in parliamentarism (even after the Paris commune), and what lengths he was prepared to go to, in order to enforce this view on the entire labor movement of his day.
• Holy shit were Marx & friends paranoid about Bakunin. Bad weather? Must be Bakunin’s fault! And the amount of slander, baseless accusations, scheming, and straight up lies is mind boggling. It’s basically like a season of Game of Thrones.
• Much of the politics of the First International was simply scheming by the General Council, which was pushing an authoritarian line at any cost, abusing its position, inventing mandates, moving conferences and congresses – doing everything to ensure a majority of delegates. The London conference and the Hague congress of course stick out as particularly shocking examples, but so was the less well known split of the Romance Federation, for instance.
• There are some really interesting discussions concerning anarchist organisation, federalism and autonomy in there, put into real practical context. What could a congress of federations legitimately decide on? Turns out these early anarchist workers (especially the Spanish sections) had already started to develop a critique of democracy (as we know it) in favor of what can best be describe as autonomy.
• I’ve already for some time appreciated James Guillaume as an often underestimated and forgotten early anarchist. In this book, he really shines through as the perhaps most convincing, balanced and best exponent of anarchist ideas of that time.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/4zfim0/the_first_socialist_schism_bakunin_vs_marx_in_the/

* * *

Table of contents:

1. Bakunin, Marx, and Johann Philipp Becker
• The Alliance ‘request’ by Johann Philipp Becker (November 1868)
• The Alliance joins the International (February–July 1869)
• Becker’s position paper on the question of organisation (July 1869)
2. The International in Geneva and in the Jura Region
• The International in Jura (February–May 1869)
3. The Basel Congress of the International
• Bakunin’s manuscript ‘To the Citizen Editors of the Réveil’ (October 1869)
• Bakunin’s first strategy: attack not Marx but his associates
4. Marx’s ‘communications’ concerning Bakunin
• Bakunin’s defence by Eugène Hins (January 1870)
• The ‘Confidential Communication’ to German social democrats (March 1870)
5. The Romance Federation split
• La Chaux-de-Fonds Congress (April 1870)
• Marx’s third ‘communication’ regarding Bakunin (April 1870)
• The General Council’s decision (June 1870)
• The international response and the International’s next congress (April–August 1870)
6. Fixing the International’s course
• Bakunin’s second strategy: cautious criticism of Marx
• Paul Robin, the congress question, and the disbanding of the Geneva Alliance section (summer 1871)
• Marx and pluralism within the International
7. The London Conference
• The London Conference’s decision on the Swiss conflict (resolutions nos. 16 and 17)
• The Nechaev trial (resolution no. 14 of the London Conference)
• Constitution of the working class into a political party (resolution no. 9 of the London Conference)
8. The Sonvillier Circular
• Reaction of the Belgian Federation of the International (November–December 1871)
• Engels’ article about the Sonvillier Circular and the declarations in support of the London Conference from Saxony and Geneva
9. The International in Italy
• Reaction of the International in Italy (until January 1872)
• Engels’ letter to Theodor Cuno in Milan of 24 January 1872
• Bakunin’s Italian manuscripts (end of 1871 to beginning of 1872)
10. The International in Spain
• The International in Madrid and the founding congress of the Spanish Federation in Barcelona (1869–1870)
• Slow reaction of the Spanish International to the Sonvillier Circular (November 1871–early 1872)
• Paul Lafargue goes to Spain
11. Lafargue’s activities in Spain
• Lafargue and the Emancipación’s contact with the Republican Party (January to March 1872)
• The Saragossa Congress (4–11 April 1872) and Lafargue’s reports in the Liberté
• Bakunin’s letters to Mora and Lorenzo (April–May 1872)
12. The Belgian rules project and the Fictitious Splits
• Fictitious Splits in the International by Marx and Engels
• Bakunin’s third strategy: open criticism of Marx
• Debate over the Belgian rules project and the second Belgian federal congress (14 July 1872)
• Cafiero’s reckoning with Engels (12–19 June 1872)
13. Convening the Congress of The Hague
• Boycott or participation?
14. The factional divide in the Spanish International
• The Alianza fracas
• Engels’ attacks against the Alianza (July–August 1872)
• The Spanish delegate elections and the New Madrid Federation before the Congress of The Hague
15. The eve of the Congress of The Hague
• The opposition
• Delegate mandates from the United States and Germany
• The French and General Council delegate mandates
16. The Congress of The Hague: the mandate commission and the commission to investigate the Alliance
• The verification of the mandates
• The voting procedure and the commission to investigate the Alliance
• The story behind Bakunin’s translation of Capital
17. The revisions to the Rules, the transfer of the General Council and the ‘Minority Declaration’
• The debate concerning the transfer of the General Council and resolution no. 9 of the London Conference
• Constitution of the minority and the final meeting of the Congress of The Hague
18. The Congresses of St. Imier, Brussels, and Córdoba
• The downfall of the Congress of The Hague’s majority
• The Brussels Congress (December 1872)
• The Córdoba Congress (December 1872)
• Bakunin and the Congress of The Hague
19. The Geneva Congresses and the disastrous New York General Council
• Reactions in Belgium, Spain, and Italy
• The split of the English International
• The congress of the federations (1–6 September 1873)
• The General Council’s congress (8–13 September 1873)
20. Politics and historical narratives
• The pamphlet ‘L’Alliance’
• The Mémoire of the Jura Federation
• Epilogue

Bibliography

Notes

Index

* * *

Convening the Congress of The Hague

(Sample from chapter 13)

Just like they had in the run-up to the London Conference, Marx and Engels laid the groundwork for the general congress of 1872 well in advance, so things would go their way. This included selecting a favourable location for the congress, which Marx and Engels had been discussing with their confidants since the beginning of 1872. Engels sent Liebknecht a written request ‘to find a form that will make it possible for you to be represented at the next congress’.¹ Liebknecht responded on 5 January 1872:

Everything necessary will be done concerning the congress. Will it take place at the usual time, or earlier for once? And where? The latter is a vital question. […] In any case, you need to make sure that if the congress does not take place in Germany, it is somewhere close to the German border. Then, the German element will definitely be strongly represented and will obviously take our side.²

After the first protests against the General Council’s leadership grab, Liebknecht wrote again: ‘Just make sure that the next congress is within reach for us and we will soon defeat this federalism – it doesn’t seem dangerous to me.’³ On the other hand, Lafargue suggested to Engels on 17 May 1872:

The next Congress must be held in England; the Bakunists would be done for there before they ever appeared. You could use as the pretext the persecutions and the need to be in touch with the trade-unions to make them join the International. You could circulate a note to the federations asking for their views beforehand. Manchester would be the best place, the French being less numerous there [than in London].⁴

The Local Committee (Comité Cantonal) of the International’s Geneva sections, where Johann Philipp Becker was a member, suggested Geneva as the congress location in a letter to the General Council dated 9 April 1872.⁵ After the letter was mentioned at the General Council meeting on 4 May 1872, the Communard and General Council member Frédéric Cournet suggested that the congress be convened as soon as possible, ‘so as to stop the complaints that were made relative to the non-holding of the Congresses [1870/1871]’ – no decision was made, though.⁶ Engels replied to Becker in Geneva on 9 May 1872 that the congress location had not yet been chosen, and continued: ‘In the meantime, we must know, if we are to be able to make a final decision, what the situation is like there [in Geneva] and whether it will be possible for you to be assured of a compact and reliable majority of the Swiss delegates.’⁷ Becker wrote an enthusiastic reply to London on 20 May 1872:

I entirely agree that the Congress must be held in a place where we are sure of a large majority. But I believe, so far as I can judge of the circumstances, that this will nowhere be more the case than in Geneva, since we are sure in advance of the 30 sections here, and consequently of just as many delegates. In the rest of Romance Switzerland we can get together at least as many representatives as the so-called Jura Federation. It is true that the latter, if it has enough money, might conceivably invent sections, Italy could send exclusively opponents, Spain and France also partly, but at any rate only in very limited numbers. If we reckon 10 Jurassians, 10 Frenchmen, 6 Italians and 4 Spaniards as opponents, that will be all; if it comes to the worst the Belgians will hold the balance and the English should all be on our side. Then with Germany we can thus be sure of an imposing majority if, besides those directly delegated, we get as large a number of societies as possible to send me mandates for Germans living here and elsewhere in Switzerland, omitting the names, which I could fill in as required.⁸

Despite these tempting prospects, the General Council passed Marx’s motion on 11 June 1872 to convene the congress in Holland on the first Monday of September. A week later, the General Council selected The Hague as the location of the congress and put the revision of the Rules on the agenda as the sole item.⁹ It is easy to see why Marx suggested The Hague as the location. England was disqualified because of tactical reasons, Engels explained two and a half weeks later:

It would be inexpedient to convene it in England from the very start, for although it would be quite safe from police interference here, it would nevertheless be subjected to attacks by our enemies. The General Council, they would say, is convening the Congress in England because only there does it possess an artificial majority.¹⁰

In Switzerland, where almost all of the International’s congresses had taken place, the General Council would have been – as Becker put it – ‘sure of an imposing majority’. However, it would also have been easier to reach than The Hague for the opposition’s delegates from Southern Europe. On the other hand, to get to The Hague 21 General Council members only had to cross the Channel. The Hague is ‘easily reached’, Engels cynically argued to the General Council, ‘and he thought that was a great advantage’.¹¹ What’s more, as difficult as it would be to send delegates from the International’s southern federations to The Hague, Bakunin’s participation there was virtually impossible, because to get to Holland he would have to travel through France or Germany, where there were warrants out for him.

The critics and supporters of the General Council in Switzerland still assumed in June 1872 that the congress would take place in Geneva or somewhere else in Switzerland. The Geneva Local Committee reaffirmed their offer to host the congress to the General Council on 19 May 1872.¹² In the Jura, the congress was eagerly awaited as it was expected to solve many problems. In view of the continuing conflict in Switzerland, the Jura Federation’s Bulletin wished the following on 1 May 1872: ‘Ah, just let the day of the General Congress come! And when we meet one another there face to face, all shall see the light, and the liars shall be put on the spot.’¹³

According to the Rules, only those who had paid their membership dues could take part in the congress. As the Jura Federation had not paid since its inception in November 1871, it made up for its arrears in a letter dated 1 June 1872: for 1871 dues were paid for 140 members (seven sections) and for 1872 for 294 members (eleven sections).¹⁴ The General Council was at first unsure as to how to deal with the fact that their opponents in Jura had paid their dues in such an exemplary fashion:

Citizen Engels said he was in favour of accepting the contribution for 1871 but of rejecting the contribution for 1872. He proposed that that should be done.
Citizen Marx said there was only one section that had not been acknowledged, that was [the Geneva Communards’ section of propaganda]. The Jurassian section was dissentient but it was a section – it had not been excluded.
Citizen Serraillier said he would accept the money but reject the men.
Citizen Marx said the Council could not accept the money for one year and refuse it for the other. The way would be to accept all but that of the one section.¹⁵

This motion was passed unanimously. Jung, the corresponding secretary for Switzerland in the General Council, noted this resolution on the Jura Federation’s letter (‘the sum of 37.20 fr. has been received, 6.20 fr. in contributions refused from the Propaganda and Revolutionary Action Section in Geneva’) and asked Marx the next day whether the Federal Committee of the Jura Federation should be informed – along with the confirmation of payment – that the congress would be convened in Holland: ‘While acknowledging the receipt of the money should I do well to inform Schwitzguébel of our decision concerning the Congress or would it be better to say nothing to him about it.’¹⁶ Marx must have advised against informing Schwitzguébel as Jung only told the Swiss sections about the decision weeks later.¹⁷

Even the General Council’s supporters were shocked when The Hague was finally announced as the location of the congress: Perret, secretary of the Romance Federation’s Committee in Geneva, wrote a resentful letter to Jung.¹⁸ But the General Council’s subcommittee merely confirmed the status quo after Perret’s letter of complaint was mentioned:

Citizen Engels took a count of delegates who wanted to be at the Congress. The outcome of the count, which was bound to be approximate, made him conclude in favour of The Hague.
Citizen Serraillier was in agreement with Citizen Engels; he took up the idea that at The Hague the success of the General Council would be general and not local, as people would inevitably have said if the Council had chosen Switzerland for the gathering. Here [in The Hague] the war was international and not national.
Citizen Marx nonetheless sounded the dangers that The Hague presented.
Citizen Engels proposed that, things being as they were, the status quo had to be accepted.¹⁹

Theodor Remy in Zurich also voiced his criticism in a letter to Jung:

Why, it has been asked, should we not be convened in London, or at Inverness, or at John O’Groat’s?²⁰ The Federal Council [General Council] had the right. But why, in the present circumstances, select The Hague? Do you know what they will say? They will say that in view of the great distance and the enormous expense it would be very difficult for the enemies of the General Council to be represented in sufficient numbers, whereas the General Council would probably be there en masse, with its supporters from German Switzerland, from Geneva, etc., and could arrange everything in its own way, almost in family.²¹

The protest from the Jura Federation’s Federal Committee, signed by its corresponding secretary Schwitzguébel, was tame by comparison:

It being in the interests of every federation and of the Association as a whole to see as many delegates as possible taking part in the Congress, common sense indicates that the place of the Congress should be as far as possible a central point, within reach of all the federations, or at least of the majority of them.
But The Hague does not fulfil these conditions. It is on the contrary far from central, and the choice of this city would make it impossible for some of the federations to send delegates in view of the enormous expenses they would have to bear.
The country which appeared to us naturally indicated as the seat of the Congress is Switzerland, by its central situation as by the relative freedom enjoyed there. We are therefore asking you, in the most formal manner and with the assurance that after a further examination of the question you will be unable to do otherwise than to share our opinion, to come back on your decision and to choose some town in Switzerland as the seat of the Congress.
We appeal to your feeling of equity; it cannot be your intention to close, indirectly, the doors of the Congress to the delegates of certain federations; you will not wish the General Congress, at which so many grave questions must find their solution, to see its moral authority weakened by this fact; you will wish, on the contrary, to give public proof of the loyalty with which you accept debate by satisfying our claim, the more so as it comes from a federation which disagrees with you on several points.²²

Of course, Marx and Engels weren’t about to change their mind – ‘you should have read Schwitzguébel’s hypocritical letter’, an amused Engels wrote about the aforementioned letter: ‘If nothing else had shown me that we were pursuing the right tactics, this would.’²³ After Schwitzguébel’s letter was mentioned in the General Council’s subcommittee, Marx said ‘that three Congresses had already been held in Switzerland, that Holland had already been proposed by the Belgians in 1870,²⁴ that Holland was the centre for England, Belgium, Germany and the North of France and that there was no need to come round to the first decision of the Council’.²⁵ In his reply to the Jura Federation, Jung wrote that the General Council’s decision to stick with The Hague

was reached after due consideration of all the arguments contained in your letter, and that this choice was dictated by the following considerations:
The Congress could not be held in Switzerland, since that is the place of origin and focal point of the disputes; the Congress is always influenced to some extent by the place in which it is held; in order to add more weight to its decisions and enhance the wisdoms of its debates, the local character must be avoided, for which it was necessary to choose a place remote from the main centre of disputes.
You can scarcely be ignorant of the fact that three of the last four congresses were held in Switzerland, and that at Basle the Belgian delegates were most insistent that the next Congress should be held either at Verviers or in Holland.²⁶
In spite of the relative freedom which she enjoys, Switzerland can hardly claim the right to monopolise congresses.²⁷

In a riposte in the Bulletin, Guillaume explained:

the fact that three congresses have already been held in Switzerland is not an argument against sticking to it for a fourth. This does not constitute a monopoly in favour of Switzerland; it is simply the result of its geographical position and its relatively liberal institutions. If one demands that the congress be convened in Switzerland, this is not in the interest of Switzerland; it is in the interest of the federations of other countries. Would one ever say that if the lamp was set in the middle of the table three nights in a row, this act constitutes a privilege for the spot on which it was set, and that therefore, in the spirit of equality, it must be set at one end of the table on the fourth night? Would readers who have need for lamp-light at the other end not complain at this alleged act of justice, and would they not rightly say that true justice would be to leave the lamp in the middle of the table for all to enjoy its light equally?
The General Congress ought to restore unity in the International: it ought to be the tribunal before which all the serious disagreements that separate and paralyze us would be considered. Held in The Hague, however, the congress will not be an instrument of unification; as a tribunal, it probably shall not provide the necessary guarantees of impartiality, and we greatly fear that instead of the peace for which we wholeheartedly appeal, the Congress of The Hague shall give us war. Whatever the case may be, it is the General Council that would have it so; let the responsibility for this fall upon it alone.²⁸

Boycott or participation?

Bakunin probably first heard that the general congress would be held in The Hague on 6 July 1872 and apparently informed Guillaume immediately.²⁹ During their correspondence between 8 and 9 July, they appear to have agreed to meet in Neuchâtel, where Bakunin travelled on 13 July.³⁰ On the following day, Bakunin met with his political allies in Jura (Guillaume, Auguste Spichiger and Schwitzguébel) for a lengthy discussion, which must have resulted in a concrete plan of action: ‘all well – / Projects fixed’, Bakunin noted in his diary on 14 July 1872.³¹ In the days that followed, Bakunin informed various people by mail about what was agreed upon. On 16 July, he wrote Gambuzzi in Naples:

As for myself, I am in the process of organising our struggle against London. – You have already received our mammoth Bulletin³² containing our initial responses to the infamous circular. Now London has struck a powerful new blow. It has designated The Hague in Holland as the meeting place for the next Congress. The obvious purpose is to prevent delegates from Italy, Spain, southern France and the Jura to come in large numbers (the journey of each delegate from Switzerland alone costs 300 fr., and for those from Italy, it cannot be less than 500 fr.) and to obtain, therefore, a Marxist majority, mostly Germans, who would crush us if we were foolish enough to go. Therefore, the Federal Committee³³ of the Jura Federation has decided to send a protest³⁴ to the General Council, quite moderate in form, quite strong in content, which will try to impress upon the General Council that given the extreme importance of the issues which this Congress will address, it is in the interest of the International that the General Council should designate a central location, preferably in Switzerland, to which delegates from all countries could travel with equal ease, and therefore invites the General Council to choose another site in Switzerland. At the same time, the Jur[assian] Fed[eral] C[ommittee] shall invite the friendly federations of Italy and Spain to join its protest and petition. If London refuses after that, we will invite the Italians and Spaniards to do what the Jura will do, that is to say, not to send any delegates to the Congress, but instead to send them to the Conference of free and dissenting sections in Switzerland, in order to assert and to maintain their independence and to organise their own inner Federation, the Federation of autonomous federations and sections within the International. Let all your friends know, and help us on your side by your energetic activity. We have just received letters from Spain, including one from the regional (national) council of Spain – the latter an official letter³⁵ – which tell us that all the Spanish sections and federations will declare for us against London and move against it in solidarity with us, demanding, as we do so today, the abolition of the General Council. This is the current state of affairs.³⁶

It’s unclear whether all of the plans Bakunin presented here were agreed upon in Neuchâtel. It seems indisputable that they planned to protest against the General Council convening a congress in The Hague – a protest which others in the International would be invited to join. But Guillaume later denied wanting to call for a boycott of the congress if The Hague was kept as the location: ‘This must be B.’s personal idea’, Guillaume wrote about Bakunin’s aforementioned letter to Gambuzzi, ‘or if we had thought about it even for an instant, we would have quickly changed our mind.’³⁷ In fact, there is evidence that Bakunin soon changed his mind and abandoned the idea of boycotting the Congress of The Hague.³⁸ He must have mentioned this reversal in his various letters to Italy.³⁹ But unfortunately for Bakunin, the militant members of the International in Italy had already taken a liking to the idea of boycotting the congress. The Italians didn’t think highly of the General Council and its manoeuvres in Italy as can be seen by the fact that most groups ignored Bakunin’s earlier appeal to comply with all of the formalities involving membership in the International:⁴⁰ despite the fact that the International had made great inroads in Italy, hardly any of the sections were properly registered with the General Council. They did not want to have anything to do with the authoritarians, who they had long ago rejected politically. For instance, a text written by Pezza or Cafiero on 20 July 1872 complained:

The authoritarian communism that predominates in the [General] Council is opposed by the revolutionary tendency of the southern sections, who are instead for the destruction of all authority and want, in place of the state, a free federation of free associations of producers. […] But the Council is not content with that; it has planned a true coup d’état, and in order to succeed in its ambitious goals, it has fixed the location for the General Congress in The Hague (in Holland), where as a result of the excessive distance and the too great expense, both Spain and France, Italy and Switzerland would only find themselves represented in tiny proportions, and the Council would thus be assured an Anglo-Germanic majority which would defer to its every wish.⁴¹

The General Council and the Congress of The Hague were also central issues when delegates from 21 Italian sections (including Cafiero [president], Nabruzzi [vice president], Costa [secretary], Fanelli, Friscia and Ceretti) met in Rimini on 4 August 1872 to form an Italian Federation of the International.⁴² They had a copy of the Jura Federation Federal Committee’s letter of protest regarding the selection of The Hague as the location of the congress.⁴³ Furthermore they received an official address from Spain, which appealed to them ‘to hold high the banner of Anarchy and Collectivism and to send many delegates to the Congress of The Hague’.⁴⁴ However, they did not accede to the appeal – at the fifth meeting of the Rimini Conference on 6 August 1872, the delegates discussed the following:

Having heard the reasons for which the Congress was called in The Hague, and having heard several speeches in which delegates all spoke against the Grand Council [General Council], a motion from the floor was unanimously approved and published separately, whereby the Italian Federation breaks off all solidarity with the Grand Council and proposes to hold a General Congress in Neuchâtel, Switzerland, on 2 September next […].⁴⁵

They justified their decision in the corresponding resolution:

Considering:
[…] that the reaction of the General Council caused enormous resentment among the Belgian, French, Spanish, Slavic, and Italian revolutionaries and in part of the Swiss, leading to the proposal to abolish the Council and the reform of the General Rules;
that the General Council has, not coincidentally, convened the General Congress in The Hague, a place that is as far as possible from these revolutionary countries;
for these reasons,
the Conference solemnly declares before every working man in the world, that the Italian Federation of the International Working Men’s Association henceforth breaks off all solidarity with the London General Council, while continuing to assert its economic solidarity with all working men, and proposes that all those sections which do not share the authoritarian principles of the General Council send their delegates on 2 September 1872 not to The Hague but to Neuchâtel in Switzerland to open an anti-authoritarian General Congress on the same day.⁴⁶

The surprising call for a boycott of the Congress of The Hague was telegraphed to the Federación in Barcelona.⁴⁷ An editorial there made a connection between the boycott call and the location the General Council had selected for the congress:

In view of the serious implications of what has been disclosed in this news – that Italy, after a delegates’ meeting [in Rimini], has decided not to attend the Congress of The Hague – we do not know which attitude the federations in our region will adopt.
At any rate, we can only record our profound disgust at what we see as the authoritarian and inconvenient actions of the General Council which, it seems, persists with the idea of holding the universal congress in the far regions of Holland, in spite of all the observations that have been made. […]
From the moment we first saw this location selected we understood the serious consequences that could come of it. For that is not the way to serve the cause of the proletariat – obliging the vast majority to make scarcely possible sacrifices resulting in insignificant representation [at the congress].
The General Council has fixed the location of the Congress in a place where it seems sure they will have the majority in their favour.
This is in essence the action of a government.⁴⁸

The general meeting of the Barcelona Local Federation on 18 August 1872 decided to send a last appeal to Italy by telegram, ‘that they do send representatives to the Congress of The Hague so as to hold our banner high. Even though at first glance it would seem that all efforts are useless in the face of a congress so cleverly prepared by the General Council for their own purposes’.⁴⁹ Morago’s newspaper, the Condenado, noted:

we wholeheartedly ask that our Italian brothers revoke their resolution and attend the Congress of The Hague. Otherwise, instead of contributing to the defence of the Association and saving it from the danger it encounters you are contributing (although in good faith) to the plans of the General Council. Snakes should not be disregarded, they should be crushed.⁵⁰

The Italian sections’ boycott call was criticised in the Bulletin as well, which added that this issue would be addressed at the Jura Federation’s upcoming congress:

On Sunday, the Jura Congress will have to make a decision about the proposal of the Italian Federation. We do not wish to prejudge its decision; however, if we may be permitted to express the entirely personal opinion of the editorial board of the Bulletin, we shall say that in our opinion, our abstention will be slandered, if we do not go to the Congress of The Hague. The Jura Federation was the first to demand a congress, a public discussion; they offer us one, at last, – under the most disadvantageous conditions, it is true, – yet they are offering it to us; we cannot be seen to reverse ourselves.⁵¹

Like the Spanish Federation, the Jura Federation stood by its decision to send delegates to the Congress of The Hague at its extraordinary congress – held on 18 August 1872 in La Chaux-de-Fonds.⁵² Guillaume and Schwitzguébel were elected delegates and given the following imperative mandate:

The delegates of the Jura Federation are given an imperative mandate to present to the Congress of The Hague the following principles as the basis of the organisation of the International. […] The federative principle being the basis of the organisation of the International, the sections federate freely among themselves and the federations federate freely among themselves with full autonomy, setting up according to their needs all the organs of correspondence, statistics bureaus, etc., which they judge to be suitable.
The Jura Federation sees as a consequence of the above-mentioned principles the abolition of the General Council and the suppression of all authority in the International.
The Jura delegates must act in complete solidarity with the Spanish, Italian and French delegates and all those who protest frankly and broadly against the authoritarian principle. Consequently, refusal to admit a delegate of these federations must lead to the immediate withdrawal of the Jura delegates.
Similarly, if the Congress does not accept the organisational bases of the International set forth above, the delegates will have to withdraw in agreement with the delegates of the anti-authoritarian federations.⁵³

A ‘Special Instruction’ held out the prospect of an alternative congress: the delegates critical of the General Council, the confidential additional resolution stated, would ‘organise amongst themselves the calling of a congress wherever they deem best’.⁵⁴

On the other hand, the boycott call by the Italian sections was rejected:

The Congress decides, as a natural corollary to the above decisions, not to accept the proposal from the Italian Federation to hold a Congress on 2 September in Neuchâtel, and it charges the Federal Committee to write the Italian Federation immediately to urgently advise it to reverse its decision and to send representatives to The Hague.⁵⁵

The Jura Federation’s Federal Committee then sent a message to the Italian Federation calling on them ‘to send their delegates to The Hague so that they could take part there in the great struggle between authority and federalism that would decide the future of the International’.⁵⁶ Furthermore, they reiterated that ‘an anti-authoritarian congress in Switzerland’ would be convened if the delegates withdrew from the Congress of The Hague.⁵⁷ Andrea Costa, who had been elected secretary of the Correspondence Commission (Commissione di corrispondenza) of the Italian Federation in Rimini, replied to the Jura Federation’s Federal Committee as follows:

In order to affirm and maintain solemnly the autonomy of the International societies, the Italian federation unanimously voted at its conference in Rimini a resolution calling a congress in Neuchâtel, Switzerland and breaking off all links with the General Council. That decision was so solemn and the delegates who passed it felt such a need for it, that we could not now reverse it without negating our sentiments.
However, though we cannot be with our brothers from Switzerland and Spain in order to support the struggle of the revolution against authority at the coming congress, we shall follow them nonetheless with our hearts, and hope at the same time that we can come to agreement with them and shake their hands soon in Switzerland, as we believe that their free proposals will not be welcomed by the representatives of authority at The Hague.
We wanted to ward off once and for all those dangers to which you called our attention by means of the circular last November:⁵⁸ you began it and we believe we have finished it.
It is not therefore for vain pride, brothers, that we shall not revoke our proposal, nor send [delegates] to The Hague, but because we believe we would betray the end which we are vowed to. […]
Lastly, the Grand Council is not the International; and while we broke with it, we also affirmed once again our economic solidarity with all working men in the world. And let that be enough for us. When the revolution meets the Bastille along its path, it will fell it by popular acclaim.⁵⁹

After a further exchange of letters between Italy and Jura,⁶⁰ an alternative congress following the Congress of The Hague was finally agreed upon. Thus, the Italian Federation was able to stick with its boycott of the Congress of The Hague and the alternative congress planned for 2 September 1872 (the opening day of the Congress of The Hague) was postponed until a later date.⁶¹

The General Council naturally took a dim view of the vocal criticism from the opposition forming in Italy, and again avoided the contentious issues in their reaction. Because of the Italian sections’ lax attitude toward formalities, the General Council had an easy time of dismissing the Italian Federation’s boycott call. Engels could not resist delving into the formalities of the issue, either. He wrote the following in the General Council’s name for Italian newspapers on 23 August 1872:

It should be pointed out that of the 21 sections whose delegates have signed this resolution, there is only one (Naples) which belongs to the International. None of the other 20 sections has ever fulfilled any of the conditions prescribed by our General Rules and Regulations for the admission of new sections. An Italian federation of the Working Men’s Association therefore does not exist. Those who want to found it, form their own international outside the great Working Men’s Association.⁶²

Possibly provoked by the conference’s address to Bakunin,⁶³ Engels used a letter to concoct a conspiracy theory about the Rimini Conference’s boycott call of the Congress of The Hague: ‘Bakunin, whose style is detectable throughout the document, realising that the game was up, has beaten a retreat all along the line and, with his followers, is leaving the International.’⁶⁴ According to Guillaume, Bakunin was really ‘just as surprised and dissatisfied as ourselves when he read the Rimini resolution’.⁶⁵ Bakunin wrote Gambuzzi in Naples on 31 August 1872:

We all deplore one of these resolutions [of the Rimini Conference], just one, that which decided not to send delegates to the Congress of The Hague. The Italians would have had to act in concert with the Spanish and the Jurassians, both having decided to send their [delegates] to The Hague, but with clearly determined imperative [mandates] commanding them to withdraw from the Congress in a concerted fashion as soon as the [majority] declared itself in favour of the Marxian direction on whatever question might be. The presence of the Italian delegates would have added a great power to this collective [protest], while their absence gives our adversaries one more argument against us. But in the end, what’s done is done; what has been so solemnly resolved by the federation of a great country cannot be rescinded or altered without drawing immense ridicule. – Thus it remains to you to accept the fait accompli, trying to take advantage of it if possible while striving to contain its disastrous effects.⁶⁶

Costa reinforced the decision made in Rimini in a statement dated 16 August 1872 and printed in the Plebe, the only newspaper in Italy which still supported the General Council. He wrote that the resolutions of Rimini had expressed a mood that

was one of absolute independence and full autonomy. And to those who accuse us of running after foreign theories let this be a guarantee, that we, though we do not follow the old traditions of our land where they negate the modern sentiment of the peoples, neither do we allow ourselves to become slaves to the first arrival from beyond the Alps.
The International (and our adversaries should know this once and for all) is not Karl Marx or Mikhail Bakunin; it has no idols of any sort to whom we doff our hats; it is not a sect and does not have any dogmas, but follows the progressive development of human thought and, where individuals halt, it walks on because the great soul of the century agitates and moves it […]. It cultivates great men with love, it admires them, it venerates them; but if any kindness towards one of these should cost it a single line of its programme, it would not do it.⁶⁷

* * *

* * *

Frequently Asked Questions

• Why so many translators?
• Only some of the relevant sources concerning the First International were originally written in English. So, in order to get best quality and the genuine expression of every quotation it was necessary to quote directly from the original sources, i.e. from the French, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Russian, and German originals. For that reason several translators were involved, specialized in their respective languages.
• Which archival collections were taken into account for the first time, as maintained on the back cover?
• Next to the collections of institutes that have long been open to researchers (such as the IISH in Amsterdam), archives inaccessible until the end of the Cold War were consulted: the former Central Party Archives of the Institutes of Marxism-Leninism located in Berlin and Moscow. Their follow-up institutions Stiftung Archiv der Parteien und Massenorganisationen der DDR im Bundesarchiv (SAPMO) and Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii (RGASPI) have given the author unrestricted access to these collections. Thus, the book is able to take numerous documents into account that have gone unnoticed or were completely unknown.
• How to support?
• Independent media and radical historiography have been marginalized long enough, so we’d welcome your support! There are several ways to spread the knowledge about The First Socialist Schism: Get it into your library, share it on social media, write a review ... For details about holding an event / bookstore reading get in touch with info@pmpress.org!

• Last Update: 26.3.2024
• About
• Top of the page
• Feedback & Additions