The London Congress of the Second International, held in London in 1896,
marked a definitive break between the authoritarian socialist component,represented by the social democratic parties organized in the
International, and the socialist-anarchist component. The meeting was
organized as an international socialist workers and trade union congress
and was held from July 26 to August 2, 1896; it was intended by the
organizers to be the definitive consecration of the social democratic
parties as the political guide of the workers' movement, and the trade
union movement was to be only a transmission belt for the political line
of these parties. The socialist-anarchist component, as socialists and
as delegates of trade union organizations, decided to participate, but
was definitively excluded from the Second International as it was
against parliamentarism.
The Second International
To understand the importance of the London Congress and its
repercussions on the history of the international labor movement, it is
important to understand what the Second International was.
Founded in Paris in 1889, it was an organization that brought together
socialist and workers' parties from various countries, with the aim of
coordinating the struggle for the improvement of working conditions and
for social transformation through parliamentary action and control of
unions. The internal debate within the Second International was
dominated by the attempt by the strongest socialist party in Europe, the
German Social Democratic Party (SPD), to impose its doctrines and
tactics on other parties, doctrines and tactics inspired, until his
death, by Frederick Engels.
In fact, the political doctrine of Marx and Engels offered arguments to
the leaders of the SPD and to the social democratic exponents of various
nationalities who connected with them, seeing in parliamentary action
and in the organization of reformist unions an opportunity for a career.
In their writings, the two German thinkers often stated that the various
political currents are an expression of the various classes, or
fractions of classes, that compete for political domination. The rise
and fall of the various parties is determined by the rise or fall of the
various social groups they represent.
Like other social classes, the proletariat also had to constitute itself
as a class in itself, it had to therefore give life to its own political
party and, since the class had to be united, the party had to be only
one: that of Marx and Engels, the German Social Democrats who embodied
the word, those linked in the Second International, who were its
projection abroad.
As James Joll writes in the introduction to "The Second International
1899-1914": "Just as the First International had collapsed because of
Marx's attempts to dominate it, and just as the Third International
would end up as an instrument of the government of the Soviet Union, so
the Second International eventually succumbed to the efforts, however
well-intentioned, of the German socialists to impose their theories and
rules of action (or inaction) on the other member parties."
The Socialist-Anarchist Tendency
The socialist-anarchist tendency owes its definition to Errico
Malatesta, who adopted it and popularized it within the movement to
distinguish that tendency from the individualist, anti-organizational,
class-negating components that, following sensational acts that had
received wide coverage in the media, appeared to be the sole expression
of the anarchist movement. This trend was encouraged by the growth of
the international labor movement, as demonstrated by the great dockers'
strike in London (1889), the international strikes for the 8-hour
workday on May Day, and the general strike in Belgium in 1893. In truth,
many anarchist groups had continued their commitment to the labor
movement and the unions, following Mikhail Bakunin's instructions, even
in the years in which government repression had pushed the majority of
the international movement to withdraw into small sectarian groups and
to avoid any public activity that could lead to disorganization of the
movement's ranks. In Spain and France above all, following the
principles already affirmed in the First International: that the
emancipation of the working class had to be the work of the working
class itself, not of governments or parliaments, and that every
political movement had to be subordinated to the great cause of the
emancipation of the working class, not that this emancipation had to
serve as a pedestal for someone's ambitions.
Libertarian unionism offered a valid alternative to the wait-and-see
attitude of the social democrats. In addition to Spain, where the
workers' unions remained consistent with the teachings of Mikhail
Bakunin, in France too the unions were moving away from social
democracy. Already in 1888 a congress of unions in Bordeaux had
condemned political action and expressed itself in favor of direct
action through the general strike. Thus in France the energies of the
anarchist movement were absorbed by the syndicalist movement.
In the following years it was the socialist-anarchist tendency, together
with the most combative components of social democracy and the unions,
that prevented the SPD's attempt to move the day of struggle for the
eight hours from May Day to the first Sunday in May. The social
democrats had the objectives of taking away from this day the energy
that came from the strike and reducing it to a series of rallies in
support of the initiatives of the social democratic parliamentary groups.
In step with the growth of the mass movement, socialist-anarchist
exponents of various nationalities met in London. At that time, the
English metropolis was the capital of international anarchism, given the
persecution that the movement suffered in other European states. The
periodical The Torch therefore represented the meeting and exchange
place between French, Spanish, British and Italian anarchists, including
Errico Malatesta.
The periodical began its publication in 1891, the first issues were
printed with a duplicator in the basement of William Rossetti's London
house, by his sons. The periodical occupies a very specific position due
to the coexistence, in its pages and among its editors, on the one hand
of anarchist activism aimed at the workers' movement and, on the other,
of the intellectual and artistic avant-garde: artists and writers more
or less passively interested in anarchism (starting with the creators of
the publication, Rossetti's sons). The international composition of the
network of contributors, marked by the strong participation of eminent
non-English speaking anarchists, is one of the most striking
characteristics of The Torch. The magazine hosted Emile Pouget, Luise
Michel, Lucien Pissarro, the Russians Petr Kropotkin and Sergius
Stepniak, the Italians Pietro Gori, Antonio Agresti and Errico
Malatesta. The August 1894 issue contains articles by Pouget and
Malatesta, while Malatesta's dealt with the theme of the general strike
as a revolutionary weapon.
In October 1894, a declaration of principles in "The Torch" stated: "We
know that the Revolution will be accomplished by the workers themselves
and, consequently, we believe in the entry of anarchists into workers'
associations and if comrades belonging to trade unions, etc., wish to
correspond with us, we will gladly open the columns of our paper to
them. The workers' movement will interest us as much as the
revolutionary movement, because the triumph of the one depends on the
triumph of the other."
A vast debate was underway and led to some key statements, which still
characterize the relationship between what is now called social
anarchism and the workers' movement. Contrary to what was stated by
Malatesta, Cafiero and Costa at the congresses of the anti-authoritarian
International, this tendency recognizes that the economic struggle has a
fundamental role in the process that will lead to the emancipation of
the exploited classes; in this perspective it is a good thing that the
exploited are organized in the unions and the anarchists must fight for
the autonomy of the unions from political parties, otherwise there would
be as many as there are parties. For this reason, social anarchism must
engage in the unions, to give them a libertarian organization, to
stimulate direct action and to spread the anarchist ideal of social
reconstruction. Anarchism must also organize itself autonomously to
develop its own political action. These concepts will be discussed in
detail by Luigi Fabbri in "L'organizzazione operaia e l'anarchia". Once
again we are faced with the coherence between means and ends and
propaganda with the deed, with the difference that now these principles
are applied to vast mass movements rather than small groups.
The London Congress
The choice of London was particularly unfortunate for the Social
Democratic International. The leaders of the German party hoped to
involve the English Trade Unions and their political representatives in
the organization. Wilhelm Liebknecht had stated during a rally in 1893
"If the English had our political organization and if we had the English
trade union organization, in England and in Germany we would have
obtained the victory and we would have the power in our hands". But the
Trade Unions and the organizations that a few years later would give
life to the Labour Party would not enter the Second International, with
the exception of minorities such as the Social Democratic Federation and
its subsequent branches that had, perhaps for this reason, an
exaggerated importance in the eyes of militants in other countries.
Furthermore, as we have seen previously, London was then a crossroads of
international anarchism, and the socialist-anarchist tendency took
advantage of the opportunity; as Davide Turcato says, speaking of Errico
Malatesta's action: "Demanding the admission of anarchists to the
congress meant reaffirming socialism and the workers' movement as
central elements of anarchism." (The Laboratory of Anarchy). Inspired by
Errico Malatesta, numerous meetings were held to organize the presence
of anarchist delegates at the Congress, obtaining delegations from both
anarchist circles and workers' organizations, so when the time came to
decide whether anarchists should be admitted or not, the Congress split,
as the French delegation had already split. The socialist-anarchist
tendency was definitively expelled from the Congresses of the Second
International, but the German Social Democratic Party and its satellites
were forced to recognize that these congresses did not bring together
the entire workers' movement and the socialist movement, but only that
tendency which recognized parliamentary action as the only instrument of
struggle. The claim to represent the working class on a world scale
failed because of the authoritarian and doctrinal spirit that informed
the German Social Democrats, which led them to exclude anyone who did
not share their theoretical premises, their tactics and their strategy,
whether the British Trade Unions or the international
socialist-anarchist tendency.
Tiziano Antonelli
https://umanitanova.org/lorganizzazione-di-massa-una-battaglia-anarchica-in-difesa-dellautonomia-sindacale/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten