¹ Jolyon, Howorth, “French Workers and German Workers: The Impossibility of Internationalism, 1900–1914”, European History Quarterly, Vol. 15 (1985), no. 1, pp. 71–97. The reader is referred to Jolyon Howorth's analysis of existing literature on the subject, since it is not proposed to re-evaluate it here.Google Scholar

² Since Marx has left behind no systematic study of this question, it has been open to interpretation. See Karl, Marx and Fnedrich, Engels, Le Syndicalisme, 2 volumes (Paris, 1972)Google Scholar and Richard, Hyman, Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unionism (London, 1975)Google Scholar on this. Georges Haupt has reflected on the importance and the complexity of the debate on party/trade-union relationship in the Second International in “Socialisme et syndicalisme. Les rapports entre partis et syndicats au plan international: une mutation?”, Jaurès et la classe ouvrière (Paris, 1981).Google Scholar

³ See, for example, Marx, 's Instructions to the Geneva delegates on “The Past, Present and Future of Trade Unions”, Collected Works, Volume 20, pp. 191–192, and Marx, Value, Price and Profit (also known as Wages, Prices and Profit),Google Scholaribid., Volume 20, pp. 101–150.

⁴ This argument is expounded by Angelika, Klein in her Ph.D. dissertation, “Das Verhältnis von Partei und Gewerkschaften in der II. Internationale (1900–1914)” (Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle, 1978).Google Scholar

⁵ The resolution on trade unions and parties passed at the CGT's Amiens congress in 1906 and known as the “Charte D'amiens” speaks of a “double besogne”: the daily task of protests and demands, and the final goal of total emancipation. See CGT, XVe Congrès national corporatif (IXe de la Confédération), tenu í Amiens du 8 au 16 octobre 1906. Compte rendu des travaux (1906), pp. 170–171.Google Scholar

⁶ See Georges, Haupt, Michel, Lowy and Claudie, Weill, Les Marxistes et la Question Nationale, 1848–1914 (Paris, 1974)Google Scholar; Cahm, Eric and Fiŝera, Vladimir (eds), Socialism and Nationalism in Contemporary Europe, 1848–1945, Volume I (Nottingham, 1978), pp. 7–19.Google Scholar

⁷ Address of the English to the French workers, signed by Odger and four other trade union leaders, and published in the Beehive, 5 December 1863. For an analysis of this address, see Henry, Collins and Chimen, Abramsky, Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement (The Years of the First International) (London, 1965), pp. 25–26, 39–40.Google Scholar

⁸ See Collins, and Abramsky, , Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement, chapter III, pp. 31–38.Google Scholar

⁹ Report of the Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Trades Union Congress, Edinburgh, 1896, pp. 23 (Report of Parliamentary Committee), pp. 32–34.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Waither, Schevenels, Forty-Five Years IFTU (Brussels, 1945), pp. 20–21.Google Scholar

¹¹ The congresses and activities of the International Transport Workers' Federation and the International Miners' Federation, in particular, grew more ambitious in the years leading up to the First World War.

¹² Legien's speech is quoted more fully in Heinz, Josef Varain. Freie Gewerkschaften, Sozialde mokratie und Staat. Die Politik der Generalkommission unter der Führung Carl Legiens (1890–1920) (Düsseldorf, 1956), p. 20.Google Scholar

¹³ John, A. Moses, Trade Unionism in Germany (1869–1933), Volume I (London, 1982), p. 138.Google Scholar Moses has written extensively on Legien's role in shaping the German labour movement and on his conception of trade union activity. On Legien's influence on the German labour movement, see also the “official' biography by Theodor, Leipart, Carl Legien: Ein Gedenkbuch (Berlin, 1929).Google Scholar

¹⁴ On Legien and Sozialpolitik. see John, A. Moses. “The Trade Union Issue in German Social Democracy 1890–1900”, Internationale Wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung, 19/20, 1973, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar On the “neutrality” debate, see Gerhard, Ritter, Die Arbeiterbewegung im Wilhelminischen Reich. Die sozialdemokratische Partei und die Freien Gewerkschaften 1890–1900 (Berlin, 1963),Google Scholar and Wolfgang, Schröder, “Partei und Gewerk-schaften. Marxistische und trade-unionistische Konzeption der Gewerkschaftsdebatte nach dem Kölner Parteitag”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung, 1973, pp. 630–649.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Correspondenzblatt, 1893, 18, pp. 69–71.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Congrès International des Travaillelurs et des Chambres Syndicales Ouvrières tenu í Londres du 26 juiller au 2 août 1896 (Geneva, 1980 reprint), p. 654.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Correspondenzblatt, 1902, p. 102. Why the English should be so reluctant to take up an initiative which came from a workers' representative, rather than from a socialist, is unclear, since trade unions continued to participate in the congresses of the Second International. Debate at the 1896 TUC had indicated that labour congresses would be more useful than socialist congresses. On the other hand, continued participation in the Second International required no guidance from the TUC leadership; it was left to individual unions to take part, whereas Legien's project was obviously aimed at the national labour federations and would therefore have demanded top-level commitment. The Parliamentary Committee was presumably reluctant to act in this direction.Google Scholar

¹⁸ So Legien reported to the English GFTU in 1901. GFTU, Second Annual Report, 1901, p.44.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Schevenels, , Forty-five years IFTU, p. 19.Google Scholar

²⁰ Isaac Mitchell's admiration of the Danish labour movement is evident in his account of the Scandinavian labour congress in Copenhagen, 1901 GFTU, Ninth Quarterly Report, 09 1901, p. 9.Google Scholar On the influence of the Scandinavian labour movement, and especially the Danish, De samvirkende Fagforbund (DsF), see Søren, Federspiel, “Fagforeningsinternationalen og DsF til 1914”, Aarbog for arbejderbevœgelsens historie, 1978, pp. 6–54.Google Scholar

²¹ See report of the Danish labour federation to the London congress of the Second International: Congrès international Socialiste des Travailleurs et des Chambres Syndicales. Ouvrières, London, 1896 (Geneva, 1980 reprint), p. 705.Google Scholar

²² Première Conférence Internationale des Secrétaires Nationaux des Syndicats, Copenhagen.

²³ August 1901 (Hamburg, no date).

²³ Protokoll der Zweiten Internationalen Konferenz der Sekretäre der Landesorganisationen der Gewerkschafren, Stuttgart, 1902 (Stuttgart, no date), p. 18.Google Scholar

²⁴ Report of the Third International Conference of Trade Union Federations, Dublin, 1903 (Hamburg, no date), p. 5. Fees were initially fixed at 6d. per 1000 members of the national federation.Google Scholar

²⁵ In 1913, the post was upgraded to that of International President, but it was still occupied by Legien, who, despite attempts during the war to transfer the headquarters of the organization to a neutral country, maintained his position until the end of the war. At the Amsterdam congress in 1919, when the IFTU was reconstituted. Legien was elected as one of the Vice-Presidents, but declined to take up this post because he had wanted to keep the presidency.

²⁶ First International Report of the Trade Union Movement, 1903 (Berlin. 1904).Google Scholar

²⁷ John, Price, The International Labour Movement (Oxford, 1945), p. 32.Google Scholar

²⁸ Hans Gottfurcht, a former General Secretary of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, acknowledged the importance of the early ISNTUC decisions for the IFTU and the ICFTU in his book, Die inrernationale Gewerkschaftsbewegung im Weltgeschehen (Cologne, 1962), p. 32.Google Scholar

²⁹ The International Socialist Bureau was set up after the Paris congress in 1900, but it was unable to produce reports as planned for the Amsterdam congress in 1904. It was not until the Stuttgart congress in 1907 that the ISB was able to report some progress in publishing reports, collecting material for a library and conducting a survey on the relationship between parties and trade unions. See Rapports et projets de résolution présentés de Stuttgart (Geneva, 1978), pp. LXI–LXX (English introduction by Camille Huysmans).Google Scholar

³⁰ See, for example, discussion at the 1911 conference: Seventh International Conference of the Secretaries of National Trade Union Centres, Budapest, 1911,Google Scholar in Eighth International Report of the Trade Union Movement, 1910 (Berlin, 1911), pp. 23–24.Google Scholar

³¹ See GFTU, Ninth Quarterly Report, 09 1901, p. 8.Google Scholar

³² Report of the Fifth International Conference of the Secretaries of the National Trade Union Centres, Christiania, 1907,Google Scholar in Fourth International Report of the Trade Union Movement, 1906 (Berlin, 1908), p. 21.Google Scholar

³³ Bericht über die Vierte Ingernationale Konferenz der Sekretäre der gewerkschaflichen Landeszentralen, Amsterdam, 1905,Google Scholar in Zweiter Internationaler Bericht über die Gewerkschaftsbewegung, 1904 (Berlin, 1906), p. 30.Google Scholar

³⁴ See USNTUC, “Decisions of International Conferences”, Eighth International Report, pp. 46–47.Google Scholar

³⁵ Schevenels, , Forty-five years IFTU, p. 51. It is difficult to assess just how much was collected through the International Secretariat, since most centres responded to appeals by sending money directly to the national centre involved, especially before 1913. Certainly the examples given concern only money sent via the International Secretary, and the total sums must have been higher.Google Scholar

³⁶ See, for example, report of Budapest conference, in Eighth International Report, p. 27,Google Scholar and Report of the Eighth International Conference of the Secretaries of National Trade Union Centres (Berlin, 1913), pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

³⁷ See report of Christiania conference, Fourth International Report, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar

³⁸ As the ISNTUC did at Christiania and Paris. See Report of Christiania, Eighth International Report, p. 25; Report of the Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the National Trade Union Centres, Paris, 1909,Google ScholarSixth International Report of the Trade Union Movement (Berlin, 1910), pp. 37–38.Google Scholar

³⁹ Christiania, , Report, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Dublin, , Report. p. 8.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Amsterdam, , Zweiter Internationaler Bericht, p. 29.Google Scholar

⁴² Christiania, , Report, pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

⁴³ Report of the Eighth international Conference, Zurich, 16–18 September1913 (Berlin, 1913), p. 37.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ These conflicts are more fully explored in Susan, Milner, “The French Confédération Générale du Travail and the International Secretariat of national Trade Union Centres, 1900–1914: French syndicalist attitudes towards internationalism and the international labour movement” (Ph.D., Aston University, 1987). [Hereafter “The French Confédération Générale du Travail”].Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Stuttgart, , Protokoll, p. 7.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This particular incident was later used by the CGT leaders to demonstrate the sterility of international conferences. At the 1909 congress of the CGT, for example, Robert, who had been involved in drawing up the CGT's report on antimilitarism and the general strike in 1903, spoke scornfully of the Dublin conference: “What did our friends do at Dublin? […] Griffuelhes and Yvetot have told you that they were led into spending an enormous amount of the proletariat's money, and to do what? to watch a car race. And after the conference, you receive a publication which no-one reads […], a pamphlet full of statistical information which is only of relative interest to you”, XVIe Congr's international corporatif (Xe de Ia CGT), Marseille, 5–12 october 1908, p. 61.Google Scholar See also Griffuelhes' bitter personal account of the Dublin conference in his book, L'Action Syndicaliste (Paris, 1908), p. 55.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Amsterdam, , Bericht, p. 30.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Christiania, , Report, p. 16.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Milner, “The French Confédération Générale du Travail”, chapters V and VI. On the revolutionary syndicalist challenge to the ISNTUC, See Wayne, Westergard-Thorpe, “Revolutionary Syndicalist Internationalism 1913–1939. The origins of the International Working Men's Association” (Ph.D., University of British Columbia, 1979).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Zurich, , Report, p. 34.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Milner, , “The French Confédération Générale du Travail”.Google Scholar

⁵² Stuttgart, , Protokoll, p. 5.Google Scholar

⁵³ Budapest, , Report, Eighth International Report, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Georges, Haupt, Socialism and the Great War: the Collapse of the Second International (London. 1972). pp. 66–72. on the ISB and the Balkan socialists.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ The International Secretariat collected £ 4000 for the reconstruction of unions in Serbia and Bulgaria, but was unable to report any progress at the Zurich congress of 1913. Zurich, , Report, pp. 20.21.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The words are those of Foster of the IWW. Budapest, . Report, Eighth International Report. p. 22.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See debates in Budapest, Report, pp. 21–23.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Budapest, , Report, p. 26.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See debates, Amsterdam, Bericht, pp. 19–22.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Congrés Socialiste International tenu á Copenhague, 28 août – 3 septembre 1910 (Geneva, 1981 reprint), pp. 362–401.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid., p. 13 (introduction by Georges Haupt).

⁶² Søren, Federspiel, “Fagforeningsinternationalen og DsF til 1914”, pp. 48–49.Google Scholar

⁶³ These figures are published in the Report of the Eighth International Conference, 1913, p. 14.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ John, Moses, for example, makes this point: Trade Unionism in Germany, p. 164.Google Scholar