MIA > Library > Glasier > The Copenhagen Congress
Published: Labour Leader, 10th September 1910, pp.569-570
Note: This is the second in a series of four articles describing the 7th Congress of the 2nd International, held in Copenhagen in 1910, from the point of view of the British ILP delegation. See the full set of articles
Transcribed: by Graham Seaman for the Marxists' Internet Archive in July 2025
Last edited: July 2025.
After adjourning on the Sunday at noon, the Congress did not again assemble in full session until Thursday morning, the cause of the prolonged adjournment being the fact that none of the committees had finished their discussion on the resolutions which were to be submitted to the Congress.
When at last the Congress was reopened, the proceedings were once more inaugurated by a speech from the chair, the chairman in this instance being Branting, whom the Bureau had appointed as general chairman of the Congress. Although this was really the first business meeting of the Congress, many delegates had already been compelled to leave for home.
Huysmans, the Secretary, announced the receipt of letters and telegrams of felicitation from all parts of he world including, I noticed, messages from Australia, Japan, the S.D.P. of Canada, the Essex Socialist Federation, and the British Socialist Sunday Schools.
A letter from Bebel was then read, and the delegates listened with intense interest to its words. The great leader expressed deep regret that he was unable to attend the Congress, and thanked the Congress for the present of a book of messages of greetings which he had received on his 70th birthday. The delegates agreed with acclamation to the proposal to send him a return message of good wishes.
The Chairman now announced that the Committee on Unemployment had prepared their resolution, but that printed copies would be immediately circulated. He suggested that in order to save time the reporter of the Commission, Adolph Braun (Germany) should proceed with his speech. Braun advanced to the platform and at once became eloquent.
As soon, however, as the terms of the unemployment resolution were made known, surprise and indignation were manifest in the faces and comments of the British delegates. With accord, they all—S.D.P., Fabian Society, and Labour Party—exclaimed against it. Never have I seen such rousing unity displayed in the ranks of the British Socialist and Labour movement as on the occasion of the presentation of this unemployment resolution. Its terms were as follows:—
"The Congress declares that unemployment is inseparable from the capitalist mode of production and will only disappear when capitalism disappears. So long as capitalist production forces [sic: forms? MIA] the basis of society, palliative measures alone are possible.
This Congress demands the institution by public authorities and under the administration of the workers' organisation Of general compulsory insurance against unemployment, the expenses of which shall be borne by the owners of the means of production. The representatives of the workers most urgently demand from the public authorities:
- Exact statistical registration of the unemployed.
- The execution on a sufficient scale of important public works where the unemployed shall be paid the Trade Union rate of wages.
- In periods of industrial crises extraordinary subsidies to Trade Union unemployed funds.
- No payment to an unemployed worker to cause the loss of political rights.
- Establishment and subsidies to Labour Exchanges in which all the liberties and interests of the workers are respected by co-operation with Trade Union employment bureaux.
- Social laws for the regulation and reduction of hours of work.
- Pending the realisation by legislation of general and compulsory insurance, the public authorities should encourage by financial subsidies unemployment benefit funds of Trade Unions, these subsidies leaving complete autonomy to the Trade Union."
A hasty conference of the leaders of the section took place at the delegates' tables, and, as the resolution was about to be put to the vote without discussion, it was agreed that MacDonald and Quelch should make known the protest of the section.
MacDonald mounted the platform, and in ringing tones denounced the resolution. It was feeble, it contained no adequate proposal for remedying unemployment, and it asserted no claim for the Right to Work. Its proposals were just such as any capitalist politician might endorse. The British delegates had not had an opportunity of considering it except at their tables, and he was not empowered to move its rejection. It was impossible however, to amend it; it would require to he redrafted from beginning to end. Under these circumstances, and seeing that it at least declared the responsibility of the capitalist system for unemployment, and affirmed the duty of the State to remedy it, he would advise the British section to allow it to pass, while thus expressly refusing to commit themselves to its terms.
The speech was loudly applauded by the British delegates, and when translated into French was applauded by the French delegates also.
Braun replied in a rather scolding speech. He did not himself wholly agree with all the terms of the resolution; it was a compromise between various drafts. He did not, however, think the Right to Work proposition would improve it. The Right to Work had, he alleged, been tried in France in 1848; it had also been tried in the British workhouses—and had failed.
This extraordinary statement. added to the amazement and anger of the British section, and Quelch demanded to be allowed an additional word of protest. He repudiated the resolution. If, he said, it went out as the declaration of the International Socialist Congress it would do incalculable harm. Every Liberal and Tory would hold it up triumphantly against them. He asked that the vote on the resolution should be delayed until the British section had time to consider it. He, for one, would not vote for it.
The vote, however, was taken, the majority of the British and French delegates abstaining from voting. A number of the British delegates, however, voted against the resolution.
A special meeting of the British section was held during the lunch interval, and it was unanimously agreed that a fresh resolution should be drafted and submitted to the Bureau. MacDonald and Burrows prepared the draft which was approved later on by the section and sent to the Bureau. After much negotiation and inside pressure the Bureau was induced to announce to the Congress that the British resolution would be printed and distributed as an addendum to the resolution. This experience of the type of practical politics which commends itself to the "class conscious" minds of our German Social Democratic comrades came as a revelation to many of our I.L.P. delegates, whose knowledge of so-called "revolutionary" Socialism in Germany is chiefly derived from accusations levelled against the Labour Party of their own country. Talk about "Revisionism!" Were the British Labour Party to put forward a resolution of such a stamp there would indeed be justification for the most scathing critics of the Labour alliance.
When the Congress was resumed on Thursday afternoon at 3 o'clock the chairman announced that the Committee on the resolutions dealing with Socialist unity and questions of national government had completed its labours. He thereupon called upon an Austrian delegate to "report" upon Ihe various resolutions which in addition to that upon Socialist unity included resolutions relating to the suppression of constitutional government in Finland, and to misgovernment and oppression in Turkey, Persia, Spain, India, and other lands.
The delegate spoke from a desk on the platform from which all speeches at the Congress were delivered. His speech was of great length, as is customary with our continental brethren, and when his address had been translated into French and English the evening was already upon us. While he was speaking the stewards were busy distributing printed copies of the resolutions in three Languages. One after another they came, falling on our tables "thick as leaves in Vallambrosa" as Hardie remarked.
The resolution on Socialist unity was couched in quite general terms and committed no one to do anything in particular. It was as follows:
"The International Congress calls to mind once more the resolutions of the Amsterdam Congress relating to the unity of the Party, and in consideration that the proletariat is an undivided unity, and that consequently every section of the International must form a united and solid group and is bound to get rid of their international [sic: internal? MIA] divisions in the interest of the working class of their own country and the entire world; in further consideration that the Socialist movement in France is indebted to their unification for an enormous increase of strength and influence, invites all national sections who are still divided to unite as soon as possible, and calls on the Bureau to help in bringing this about."
A Finnish delegate followed and expressed gratification at the terms of a resolution protesting against the action of the Russian Government in suppressing Finnish constitutional liberty.
De Leon, the leader of the dissentient Socialist Labour Party in America, then mounted the rostrum, and announced his intention of speaking on the subject of Socialist unity. The appearance of this arch-disruptor as an apostle of unity created no little surprise and amusement, especially among the delegates of the American Socialist Party—eight of whom, including John Spargo, Morris Hillquit, Robert Hunter, Victor Berger, and Haywood were present in the Hall. De Leon, who is a small elderly man, and reputed to be a man of inexorable wiliness, declared that he was there to pledge himself to do his utmost to effect unity between his Party and the Socialist Party of America. His heart yearned for unity and his Party, the Socialist-Labour Party, was ready to appoint a committee to take part in a conference with that object in view right away, and he called up the Socialist Party to come on the platform and g►ive a similar pledge.
The Socialist Party delegates laughed at this challenge, and Morris Hillquit took the platform and gave their reply.
Hillquit took his "gloves off," so to speak, and went for De Leon's dialectic. He spoke in German first and then in English. All the delegates were alert to the spicy nature of the encounter. The Socialist Party in America, he said, was the product of Socialist unity. It was formed at a convention at which all the Socialist organisations in America were represented except—and words were scornfully flung at his opponent—except the Party represented by De Leon. The Socialist Labour Party had dwindled while the Socialist Party had increased. Nevertheless, the Socialist Party was even now prepared to join with De Leon's Party provided the latter were prepared to join on true Socialist principles without the intermixture of curious doctrines. It was strange. however, that De Leon came to this Congress "yearning for unity," as he had said. while at the same time he had presented a report to the Congress full of bitter, unfair, and cruel attacks on other organisations. If De Leon wished for unity he must agree to carry out the principles of unity as they were represented in the International Congress.
Victor Berger followed. He spoke only for three minutes—one and a half in German, and one and a half in English. Berger, who is one of the leading Socialist thinkers in America, is a fine breezy fellow. He hails from Milwaukee, where, largely owing to his splendid advocacy, Socialists achieved their great triumph at the municipal elections a few months ago.
Ten years ago, he said, the Socialist Party and the Socialist Labour Party were both about equal—they had about 10,000 members each. Now the Socialist Party had 53,000 members, and the Socialist Labour Party had less than 1,000! Give us, he cried, a year or two more, and there will be no Socialist Labour Party with which to unite. So long as De Leon attacked the Trade Unions and vilified the Socialist Party unity was impossible.
Both Hillquit's and Berger's speeches were loudly cheered—especially by the American and the I.L.P. delegates. Our S.D.P. friends were, I thought, less hearty. Perhaps they felt that the speeches had a moral for the S.D.P. in Britain as well as for the S.L.P. in America.
So many and varied were the resolutions submitted in the report under discussion that one never knew what topic any new speaker was likely to take up.
The next speaker—a Turkish delegate—at once switched off our minds from the topic of Socialist unity to the topic of the misdeeds of the Turkish Government, against whom he brought a strong indictment. The Young Turks in power had, he said, withdrawn the right of political associations, and of Trade Union combinations, and were mercilessly crushing the rising aspirations of the working class.
But Socialist Unity emerged once more before the debate was closed. A delegate from one of the many Austrian sections made a fiery little speech on some subject I did not understand. Whereupon another delegate of the same nationality rose and said the previous speaker represented only one of the Socialist Parties, and repudiated his statement.
The Congress adjourned at 6-30 p.m. without coming to a vote on the resolutions.
On Friday morning, the Congress, on the suggestion of the chairman, agreed that the Socialist Unity and national resolutions should be put to the vote without further discussion. The Socialist resolution was put first and carried unanimously amidst much applause. The Finnish resolution was put next, and on its adoption the whole Congress rose to its feet and cheered enthusiastically.
It was known that the resolutions of the Commission on Anti-militarism would come next, and the Congress Hall was crowded from floor to ceiling with delegates and spectators. Among the distinguished strangers on the platform was the venerable apostle of peace, Felix Moscheles, and many delegates availed themselves of the opportunity of greeting him.
Hardie, Miss Murby, Dr. Dessin, and myself were the British representatives on the Anti-Militarist Commission, and at the outset of its sittings Hardie and I explained the terms of the resolution which the I.L.P. had put forward for consideration. After some discussion, in which Vaillant, Ledebour, and others took part, the task of framing a composite resolution was entrusted to a sub-committee, upon which Hardie acted as our representative. The only critical point of difference among the members of the subcommittee was, I understand, that of the advisability of recommending a general strike in the event of war breaking out. Hardie and Vaillant, who represented the French Socialists, strongly urged the inclusion of a paragraph to that effect, but its inclusion wad no less strongly resisted by Ledebour of the German Party. Eventually it was agreed that Hardie and Valliant should be allowed to move the paragraph as an amendment or rather as an addition to the resolution.
I may state that the British section unanimously agreed to support the amendment.
The resolution itself draws attention to the alarming increase of armaments, the waste of national resources caused thereby, and their menace to the peace of the nations. It declares that workers of all countries have no quarrel with each other, and that modern warfare is the result of capitalism—particularly of capitalist rivalry for the world markets, and that war will only cease with the disappearance of capitalist production. Then follows the more essential paragraphs:
"The Congress reiterating the oft-repeated duty of Socialist representatives in the Parliaments to combat militarism with all means at their command and to refuse the means for armaments, requires from its representatives:
- The constant reiteration of the demand that international arbitration be made compulsory in all international disputes.
- Persistent and repeated proposals in the direction of ultimate complete disarmament; and above all, as a first step the conclusion of a general treaty limiting naval armaments and abrogating the right of privateering.
- The demand for the abolition of secret diplomacy and the publication of all existing and future agreements between the Governments.
- The guaranty of the independence of all nations and their protection from military attacks and violent suppression.
The International Socialist Bureau will support all Socialist organisations in their fight against militarism by furnishing them with the necessary data and information, and will, when the occasion arrives, endeavour to bring about united action. In case of warlike complications, this Congress reaffirms the resolution of the Stuttgart Congress, which reads:
In case of war being imminent, the working classes and their Parliamentary representatives in the countries concerned shall be bound, with the assistance of the International Socialist Bureau, to do all they can to prevent the breaking out of the war, using for this purpose the means which appear to them the most efficacious, and which must naturally vary according to the acuteness of the struggle of classes, and to the general political conditions.
In case war should break out notwithstanding, they shall be bound to intervene for its being brought to a speedy end, and to employ all their forces for utilising the economical and political crisis created by the war, in order to rouse the masses of the people, and to hasten the downbreak of the predominance of the capitalist class.
For the proper execution of these measures the Congress directs the Bureau, in the event of a war menace to take immediate steps to bring about an agreement among the Labour Parties of the countries affected for united action to prevent the threatened war."
Ledebour, who reported on the resolution, is a keen, but I suspect, rather academic controversalist. He is nimble and agressive rather than powerful and far-seeing; but he is amazingly well informed, especially regarding British history, literature, and politics. He threw away on this occasion, a splendid opportunity of delivering a great international pronouncement, and devoted himself instead to the smaller aim of scoring brilliant but irritating points against the I.L.P. and the British Labour Party.He spoke in German, pausing frequently between his words, and stretching out his hand with a curious gesture suggestive of plucking feathers from an imaginary bird. Every now and then he flashed into a rapid rapier-like thrust of words, and with head leaning forward plunged down his arm as if turning the point of his weapon in the body of his victims. He did me the honour of selecting me. or perhaps I should say, a remark made by me in the Commission as his first quarry. I had stated that it was an error to speak of war as due merely to capitalism. War, I pointed out, was frequent in primitive society in which neither landlordism nor capitalism existed. There was marriage by capture and fighting even for fighting's sake. Both war and capitalism were, I insisted, the products of the wild animal nature in man which socialization was gradually eliminating. This statement, true as a matter alike of history and sociology, roused Ledebour into a high state of derision. "It would not," he exclaimed, "be up-to-date even in a Young Men's Christian Association." Whereat there was a titter of laughter.
Ledebour went on to acknowledge that the British Labour Party had brought forward an amendment to the war estimates of the Government, as the German Socialist Party had done in their country. In the latter only one Liberal had voted with the Social Democrats, whereas in England several dozen Liberals had voted with the Labour Party. But—and then came his little thrust—he had noticed "that the Labour Party had not attended in full numbers. The Labour Party had in the end voted for the Budget, and by this action supported the Featherstone murders and had deprived themselves of all title to moral rectitude on the subject of militarism." He sarcastically expressed surprise that MacDonald, who was "the practical politician of the Party" should endorse the strike amendment.
He also referred to Quelch's approval in "Justice" of the British Government's refusal to abandon the right to capture merchandise in war. This, he said, put his English friends out of court when lecturing others.
Finally he appealed to Hardie and the British delegates to withdraw their amendment which, he said, though right in theory, was quite impracticable. He was, he said, opposed to militarism in every form, and abjured Socialists in all lands to resist to the uttermost War Budgets and all attempts to imperil the cause of peace.
Then came a curious episode. Ledebour undertook the translation of his speech into English, and in doing so introduced a great deal of entirely fresh matter. Whereupon Jaurès rose and pointed out that he was delivering a fresh speech. Ledebour explained that he was simply endeavouring to illustrate his points by references which would enable the British delegates to grasp his meaning more clearly. Jaurès thereupon amidst much amusement insisted that this new speech should also be translated into French. In reply Ledebour entered into another explanation, and Huysmans was heard to remark that this third speech should also be translated!
Ledebour's speech and its translation into English and French occupied he entire morning sitting.
There were great expectations that there would be "wigs on the green" when the Congress resumed its sitting in the afternoon. Ledebour's assault on the British section had aroused an acute interest in the speech that Hardie was about to make.
Hardie, who was received with loud cheers from all the sections of the Congress, began by stating that he desired that the position of the Socialist and Labour movement in Britain on the question of Militarism should be understood by their foreign comrades. It had been much misrepresented. He reproved Ledebour for bringing into the discussion the little internal affairs of the British movement, and took occasion also to clear away Ledebour's misrepresentation of my remarks in the committee. The British Labour Party took, Hardie said, a very definite stand against war. They were not only anti-war but anti-military—which was not quite the same thing. A standing army was an indication that the State was founded on force. Militarism and freedom could not exist side by side.—(Applause.) It was a source of great pleasure to him to find that the Socialists of Denmark and Norway were not only against vast expenditure on armaments, but were opposed to armaments altogether, and had moved for their abolition in every form. There was, he declared, a big place in history for the nation which has the courage and faith to be the first to disarm itself. No country, not even despotic Russia, would dare to attack an unarmed nation.
Dealing with the argument used in the Capitalist Press for a large navy, he said that the refusal of the Hague Conference, in obedience to the British Government, to abolish the capture of merchandise at sea, did much to excuse though it might not justify that argument. At this point, Ledebour interrupted to make an explanation, and Hardie warmly remarked that he had not interrupted Ledebour even when he misrepresented the actions of the Labour Party.
In clear ringing tones, Hardie dissociated the British movement from the articles by Blatchford and Hyndman in the Capitalist Press and in "Justice" and the "Clarion." He believed that the S.D.P. delegates would endorse his statement that on this question these men spoke for themselves only, and that every section of the Socialist movement in Britain disapproved of their utterances and their conduct in taking sides with the Capitalist Press.
Referring to the Budget, he pointed out that the tradition of voting against Parliamentary Budgets as such comes down from the days of Anti-Parliamentary agitation. The Labour Party had spoken unequivocally and voted against the armament provisions of the Budget. To vote for the rejection of the entire Budget would be to vote against the provision of money for Old Age Pensions, against the payment of wages for the servants of the State. and against every Social undertaking of the State.
The I.L.P. in Britain were arranging, he said, for a great campaign against war. Jaurès and Vandervelde were coming to speak, and he hoped that Ledebour himself or some other German comrade would come also.
Turning to his own amendment. he had offered to Ledebour to withdraw the addition providing he would agree to the Bureau circulating the following paragraph, which embodied his amendment:—
"The Congress recommends the affiliated parties and Labour organisations to consider the advisability and feasibility of the general strike, especially in industries that supply war material, as one of the methods of preventing war, and that action be taken on the subject at the next Congress."
The French, American, and South German representatives on the Committee agreed to support that, but Ledebour on behalf of the Germans declined. It was true that a general strike against war could only come by the international agreement of the workers. But did they not know that the miners, at their recent International Conference, had actually agreed that this very question should be referred to their Executives in order that it might be considered at their next Conference? The miners alone could prevent war by withholding supplies.
We must, he said in conclusion, give the workers a great lead. He did not expect that the workers were at present ready to strike against war. But they never would be ready do so unless we helped to educate them by pointing out to them their duty. Let us begin now. The world would reap the fruits to-morrow.
Tremendous applause greeted the conclusion of the speech in which the German delegates joined, though they had refrained from applauding any portion of the speech except the passage repudiating Blatchford and Hyndman. It was the loftiest Socialist utterance that had yet been heard from the platform. Renaud, of Austria, agreed with almost all that Hardie said, but doubted the wisdom of the amendment. Nevertheless, the Congress was, he said, glad to hear "their white-headed comrade speak in such a lusty revolutionary strain." The adoption of the amendment would, he added, in a curiously self-contradictory way, sound the death-knell of the Social Democratic Party in Austria. What he meant by that I do not pretend to know.
Jack Jones, on behalf of the S.D.P., supported Hardie's addition, but did so in a speech which was meant rather to "get at" the Labour Party than to be an international proclamation of his Party. The S.D.P.. he said, were ready not only to express revolutionary sentiments at Copenhagen but in Great Britain. One sixth of the Labour Party, he remarked, had voted for increased armaments, but he did not add, that in doing so they had the approval of Hyndman and of several of his Social Democratic delegates at the table. He waa glad, he said, that the representatives of the Labour Party at the Congress had approved the amendment, and be warned them that the S.D.P. would see to it that the Labour Party kept their word, and advocated the general strike in England. He attempted to justify both Hyndman's and Quelch's utterances, and concluded by stating that the mere threat of a general strike might suffice to prevent war.
This speech (1 hope I am not unfair in my estimate of it) was a mere piece of platform rant inspired chiefly with enmity against the Labour Party. Both the German and the French delegates smiled wearily while it was being translated to them.
Vandervelde rose to state that the Belgian Party would abstain from voting, but they wished it to be known that they absolutely approved of the general strike. The speech of Hardie greatly added to their admiration for him as a representative of the British Socialist and Labour movement.
He approved not only of a general strike, but of a general rebellion against war. See, he exclaimed, how bravely the Socialist and Labour movemont in Britain had resisted the war against the Boers! So also had the Russian Revolutionists resisted the war against Japan; and the Spanish Socialists the war against Morocco.
At this stage the Chairman announced that the German section had agreed to refer Hardie's amendment to the International Bureau.
Then, after a splendid speech in support of the proposition by the old fighting leader, Vaillant, of the French Party, the resolution was carried on the understanding that the amendment would be considered by the Bureau.
This must conclude my narrative for the week. It is now four o'clock in the morning. I shall give an account of the concluding proceedings of the Congress, and of the British section, next week.
Top of the page | Next article