MIA > Library > Glasier > The Copenhagen Congress
Published: Labour Leader, 23rd September 1910, pp.596-597
Note: This is the last 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 set of articles
Transcribed: by Graham Seaman for the Marxists' Internet Archive in July 2025
Last edited: July 2025.
This week's article concludes my account of the International Congress. It is, I believe, the fullest record of its proceedings which has appeared in the British Press. I have tried to give readers at home a fair and, as far as possible, an adequate impression of the great Copenhagen meeting, but I have had to leave out much, including the discussions in the committees.
The Capitalist Press has belittled the Congress, giving only a few paragraphs about it. That is to be expected of the Capitalist Press. I hope our movement at home will not be prejudiced by the Capitalist Press, nor by the statements of anyone, concerning the Congress.
No meeting in all the world, as Hardie has rightly said, approaches the International Congress in importance and significance to the human race. Assembled together at Copenhagen we had in essence the thought and the forces which make for the destiny of all politics and society. The resolutions adopted may in several instances have been indefinite and even defective, because from the circumstance of the case they must be general and composite in terms. But the resolutions are merely temporary signal posts on the line of march. The great achievement of the Congress is the fact of the Congress itself—the beginning of the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the world. What counts is not the resolutions, but the assembly together in miniature of the workers of the world—the personal contact, the exchange of thoughts, the understanding of one another! He has no scientific discernment, no imagination, who fails to perceive that in this great communion of the Socialists and Trade Unionists of the world, with all their little differences and dialectical onsets, we have the promise and potency of the emancipation of mankind.
Saturday brought the eight days labours of the Congress to a close. The sitting of the previous day had lasted, with only an hour-and-a-half's luncheon interval, from shortly after 10 in the morning till 8 in the evening. The Saturday's sitting was almost as exhausting—the clock hands had passed 6-30 before the concluding salutations were over.
Fully half the British delegation had left on the Friday morning by the Finland line steamer for Hull. Their return voyage proved, I understand, not quite such a halcyon experience as their outward trip. A great storm burst upon them on Saturday while still midmost the North Sea, and instead of songs and deck games and paradings on the captain's bridge there were abdominal spasms and melancholic broodings over the gunwales, and groanings that could not be uttered. I sigh to think of our genial Artemus stowed in some shapeless corner reflecting disconsolately on the fate of Jonah, of Dr. Dessin expostulating with the Cosmos while clinging to a cabin door, and of our tuneful lady comrades lying like crumpled roses in their berths. To one and all Dr. Robertson's song "Oh gin I were where the gaddie rins" must have acquired a new pathos, and my heart goes out to them.
The chairman opened the proceedings on Saturday morning by announcing that a report on International Solidarity would now be submitted to the Congress. Instantly the delegates were all attention, as the topic was expected to contain explosive elements. It had been rumoured that the discussion on this report would be made the occasion of a strong attack on British Trade Unions for their failure to respond to the appeal for funds on behalf of the great Swedish strike and lockout which took place last year. The introduction of this regrettable incident hardly seemed an auspicious way of inaugurating a resolution in favour of the solidarity of the workers, but the subject had given rise to some bitter feeling in Sweden, and some allusion to it was inevitable.
Huggler, one of the Swiss delegates, delivered the report. He spoke in German, but he had not gone far before the British delegates were made aware by his frequent repetition of the word "English' and by the glances of the German delegates in their direction that he had opened fire upon them. Evidently our German comrades felt they were having "a bit of their own back again" over the Thursday's unemployment discussion, and were enjoying it.
When the speech came to be translated into English, we learnt that the speaker had expressed surprise that the Socialists and Trade Unions of Europe had not shown greater anxiety than they had done to promote the cause of International working-class emancipation by supporting the Swedish brethren in their grand struggle against capitalism. The Swedish Trade Unions during their lock-out had received much moral but little material support from the great nations. No less than 300,000 people had been deprived of all resources by the action of the capitalists. Norway and Denmark had made heroic sacrifices. Denmark had contributed £20,000, Germany £64,000, but France had only given £3OO and Belgium had done nothing. But the greatest of all surprises was the absence of all but the very paltriest help from England. It was absolutely impossible to understand or excuse this neglect on the part of the English Trade Unions. The British Unions had been regarded as the leaders of Trade Unionism in the world, but on this occasion they had quite failed to act up to their reputation.
It had been agreed in the British section that Anderson should explain the British position in the event of the question being raised, and that if necessary W. C. Robinson should also speak in the debate.
Anderson, however, put the case so ably and so fairly that it was felt unnecessary to supplement his statement. His speech, which was his first effort on an International platform, was acknowledged on all sides to be excellent in delivery and admirable in tone. He expressed at the outset cordial agreement with the terms of the resolution itself, though he considered them rather vague. The international solidarity of the working class must be the basis of International Socialism and peace. He then turned to the charge against the British Trade Unions, and admitted at once that they had failed lamentably in their duty towards their Swedish fellow-workmen. He hoped, however, that the Congress would devote its attention to securing better things in the future rather than to recriminations over the mishaps of the past. English Trade Unionism was old, it had been established before Socialist propaganda began, and the task of infusing Socialist ideas and International feeling into them was more difficult than in countries where Socialist teaching had preceded Trade Union organisation. Last year, too, was a period of great trade depression in Britain, and Trade Union funds in many instances were seriously depleted. The Congress should also bear in mind that they possessed no Socialist or Labour daily press in Britain, and they had not therefore the means possessed by their continental comrades of informing and of concentrating the attention and rousing the enthusiasm of the rank and file with respect to foreign Labour disputes. There was also great difficulty in Britain, owing to the legal constitution of Trade Unions in this country, of voting large sums unless by ballot of all the members, by which time assistance was too late. He concluded by claiming that British Trade Unionists were becoming more and more international in spirit, and were steadily building up the machinery by which International solidarity could be realised.
The speech was warmly cheered from our benches, and though on its being translated to them, the German delegates did not disguise their cynicism as to its explanatory passages, they applauded its concluding statement. "He has said just the right thing," said Barnes at our table, "and this discussion will do good in England."
Cohen, of the German Ironworkers, continued the discussion. Anderson had, he said, made the best that could be made of the case, but it was an explanation not an excuse. He wished to know whether Anderson's fine international avowal really reflected the feeling of British Trade Unionists? He wanted also to know whether, apart from the rank and file, the Socialist and Trade Union leaders in England had themselves displayed any real interest in the Swedish struggle? He then went on to say that they could not accept trade depression as any excuse for lack of financial support from England, as unemployment was then much higher in Germany than in England—it was as high as 11 per cent. to 12 per cent.—yet the German Unions had contributed a large sum.
This speech, like that of Ledebour's on "Anti-Militarism," was, I thought, disappointingly lacking in International aplomb, and hardly represented the bigger spirit of the German movement. But I must not be too preceptorial with our German comrades, remembering as I do the utterances of certain British delegates.
The next report was on the subject of International Labour Legislation.
Molkenbuhr, who, in the absence of Bebel and Singer, is generally regarded as the most authoritative speaker on German benches, made the report. He is a heavy man—heavy in build, in brain, and in speech, and reminds one somewhat of Enoch Edwards. M.P. His voice is certainly not musical: he grinds out his German vocables like a stone-grinding machine. But he is full of capacity, possesses a wide international outlook, and has not a little of the fatherly good humour and blunt honesty of speech which made Singer so well beloved of his colleagues.
He dealt with the chief items of the resolution. which included a maximum eight-hours day, prohibition of boy and girl labour under 14 years, an uninterrupted cessation from work of at least 36 hours a week, and other items. Referring to compulsory Insurance against sickness and unemployment, he said that compulsory Insurance had been one of the chief causes of Germany's industrial prosperity. The more the State interested itself in the security and welfare of the workers, even under capitalism, the more efficient and productive became the labour of the workers. This was seen in England no less than in Germany. The advent of Free Trade and Factory Legislation coincided with the era of England's greatest commercial prosperity. Thus also it happened that because of Free Trade and Factory Legislation in England, the wages of women rose, and the poor German women workers were unable to compete against the higher paid English workwomen.
Concluding, he reminded the Congress that the real obstacle to social reconstruction lay not in the opposition of the capitalist class, but in the ignorance and indifference of the working class, and one of the chief purposes Of the International Congress was to help to arouse the interest and enthusiasm of the workers of all countries in behalf of their own emancipation.
The resolution was then adopted—the British delegates, as already recorded, either abstained from voting or voted against the section of the report dealing with unemployment.
A special resolution on the important subject of the Right of Asylum was submitted by the Bureau to the Congress. The following is the text:
Recently in various countries many instances have occurred where, under various fallacious pretexts, the right of asylum for political refugees has been violated. The Russian Government particularly distinguishes itself in this field in a most deplorable manner. Thus Jules Wezosol has been recently arrested in Boston upon the demand of Russia for his extradition.
Even England, contrary to all her traditions, consents to employ this process, violating the right of asylum, as in the case of the revolutionary Hindoo, Savarkar, who, in an unprecedented manner, has been arrested on French soil and extradited without any legal formality.
The Congress vigorously protests against these criminal violations of the right of asylum, and urges the proletariat of all countries to resist by all the means of propaganda and agitation it possesses these assaults upon the dignity and independence of their own countries, which menace the liberty of action of the working class and its international solidarity.
Keir Hardie, who moved the the Resolution, dwelt specially on the case of Savarkar, the Hindoo agitator, who recently escaped from [to? MIA] French soil from custody, but was handed over by the French police to the British authorities.
After relating the circumstances of the arrest, Hardie proceeded to say that he did not profess to be learned in International law, but his comrade Jaurès, who was acknowledged to be one of the greatest authorities on the subject, held that the extradition of Savarkar was illegal. His (Hardie's) contentious were: (1) That the right of asylum was one of the greatest treasures of political liberty. In Britain they had afforded protection to Garibaldi, Mazzini, Kossuth. and Karl Marx, and by doing so had conferred a precious heritage to civilisation. If we now allowed the right of refuge to be taken away, we might make it impossible for men as good as these to live and carry on their work among us. (2) He believed that the trial of Savarkar had not been a fair one. He had been condemned as though he were a mere criminal; no recognition of the political purpose of his actions was allowed. They must remember that in India the right of free speech is forbidden, and that accused political agitators are transported without trial. While personally he did not approve of all that had been said or done by the Indian revolutionists, yet he stood up, and he was confident the Congress would do so, for justice to the Indian nationalists, and for the preservation of every constitutional right that the sacrifice of their fathers had won.
The speech was received with great cheers.
There was a general expectation that Jaurès, who bad not as yet spoken in the Congress, would rise to support the resolution—especially in view of his own protest in the French assembly against Savarkar's arrest on French soil, but unfortunately, however, Jaurès, who had been suffering from severe headache, had gone out for a walk in the fresh air and did not return in time to take part in the discussion.
Pablo Iglesias, the Spanish Socialist leader, whose recent election to the Spanish Cortes constitutes the first Parliamentary victory for Socialism in Spain, then addressed the Congress. He was received with prolonged cheers.
He is an elderly white-headed man, with shortcut beard. There is no suggestion whatever of the typical (or mythical) Spanish desperado about him. He spoke with commendable brevity, beginning in German, and to the surprise of the translators and all who noticed it, lapsing into Spanish after the first two or three sentences. His exhortation was that Spanish and French working men should specially unite in protesting against the Morocco campaign as they had done against the execution of Ferrer.
The resolution was carried by acclamation, and the Congress adjourned for lunch.
My task of recording for the LABOUR LEADER the proceedings of the Congress is now nearing an end. It has been a somewhat heavy one, superadded as it has been to my duties as a delegate, which kept me, and the remark applies to my colleagues also, absorbed in the work of the Congress from morning till night.
The concluding sitting of the Congress on Saturday afternoon was devoted to the report on Co-operation in relation to Socialism, and to the delivery of congratulatory speeches to our Danish comrades.
The resolution on co-operation is a long one. It declares that it is of the highest importance that the workers should make use of co-operation in the class-struggle, and calls upon Socialists and Trade Unions to actively participate in the co-operative movement in order to develop in it the spirit of Socialism. The whole of the profits should not be returned to the consumers, but part should be used to improve the conditions of the employees, and co-operators should make themselves model employers of labour. It should be left to each country to decide how far it is advisable for co-operators to use their resources for political purposes. Co-operators, Trade Unionists, and Socialists, while maintaining their separate organisations, should as far as possible combine together for the common object of working emancipation.
Dan Irving, in the course of the debate, made a speech which surprised the Congress and which, I noticed, has been made much of by the Capitalist Press at home. He expressed strong dissatisfaction on the part of the S.D.P. with the moderation of the Congress resolutions. "The Congress," he said, "had not moved a step during the last twenty years." The Capitalists would make fun of their labours. The whole proceedings are a sort of Sunday afternoon's entertainment, and had not been worth the money which the delegates had paid for their fare.
I did not hear a portion of his speech, but I gathered from the comments of the table and from the reply of Von Elm (Germany) that Irving had said some hard things about the co-operative movement in this country.
Von Elm in defending the resolution also defended the British Co-operative movement, concerning which he is exceedingly well informed. He pointed out that the English Co-operative movement had been founded by the great Socialist pioneer, Robert Owen, and maintained that in creating their wonderful organisation, not only for the distribution but the production of wealth, English Co-operators, whether consciously or unconsciously, we building up the economic foundations of Socialism.
Dr. Adler, the famous leader of the Austrian Socialist Party, invited the Congress to hold its next meeting three years hence in Vienna. He did so in a delightfully graceful little speech touched with historical allusions and quaint philosophy. The invitation was unanimously accepted.
Now came the end. Molkenbuhr, on behalf of the German speaking delegates, moved that the Congress should accord its most grateful thanks to the Danish Socialist Party for the splendid arrangements they had made for the reception and entertainment of the delegates. In doing so he paid a high tribute to the achievements of the Danish Party in the Parliament and in the municipal and industrial life of the nation.
Hillquit joined in the tribute on behalf of the English-speaking delegates. It is said that he was about to do so in the German tongue, but recollected himself in time. Hillquit, despite his sense of humour, repudiates the allegation.
Everyone—delegates and spectators alike—had been eager to hear Jaurès, the chief of Socialist orators, address the Congress, but day after day had passed without his ascending the rostrum. Almost the last flicker of hope had gone of hearing a speech from him, when, at the request of the chairman, he rose from his seat in the hall and, amidst great cheering, mounted the platform to associate the French-speaking delegates with the congratulations to our Danish comrades.
Jaurès is a little thick-set man—one fancies that though a lawyer, he is distinctly of the peasant type. But he is a man of prodigious information, unbounded courage, and overflowing humanism. His gestures on the platform are almost ungainly; he stretches forth his thick arm, wriggles his wrist as if loosening a heavy bolt, and then suddenly plunges his arm down as if casting the heavy missile at the head of some miscreant grovelling on the floor.
His speech was not a speech, it was a "manifestation"—a Handelian chorus in words. His sentences came in torrents, which rose and rippled and broke as over precipices with a resounding crash. Hardly did it matter what the speech was all about—it was magnificent! Yet it was a sublime invocation to International Unity, to Socialism, to Anti-Militarism and the cause of Peace. The Congress and spectators—one-half at least of whom did not understand a word of the speech—were thrilled, and when the oration ended the entire assembly cheered again and again.
Vandervelde as chairman of the Bureau said a few final words and called for cheers for International Socialism. The Congress rose to its feet and three thunder peals of "hochs" and "hurrahs" shook the roof.
Then came a grand moment. Suddenly from the side gallery the Danish Socialist choir burst forth with the "International," and the Congress, still on its feet, reverberated the chorus. Again came cheers—cheers for the Socialist Party of Denmark, cheers for Finland.
And all was over—no!
The German and Austrian delegates burst into their "Workers' Song"—a powerful marching air. The French delegates invited the British delegates to follow on; the British delegates hesitated, asked each other what they should sing, and then, alas, essayed the "Red Flag." It was an awful anti-climax, and we felt thoroughly ashamed of ourselves. 'Twas as if we were singing our own funeral dirge. So the French gallantly covered our humiliation by renewing the "International," which was followed by our Danish comrades in the gallery singing their own marching song.
And amidst a multitudinous shaking of hands by comrades of all nations the Congress ended.
I must only mention, I dare not begin to describe, the farewell reception and banquet given us by our Danish comrades in the Town Hall. The building itself, with its truly magnifcent domed quadrangle, arcaded balconies, and countless rooms, is the noblest structure of the kind I have ever seen. The feast astonished us; it was such as might celebrate the triumph of the Social revolution!
Of the other meetings in Copenhagen and in Sweden, addressed by members of the Congress, Hardie will. I hope, give an account.