This survey of the personnel of the highest bodies of the Comintern is meant to be a tool for researchers and historians studying the history of the international labour movement, especially of the Communist International.

In the decade before World War I, revolutionary syndicalists and reformist socialists clashed repeatedly in the Italian labor movement. The reformist socialists, who maintained a hegemony throughout this period, advocated cooperation and compromises with the bourgeoisie and the government, supported by the Socialist Party in Parliament, to secure socio-economic benefits for the workers. The revolutionary syndicalists, who began to present an alternative to this strategy in 1905, favored direct action by workers through the unions to seize advantages from the bourgeoisie and reinforce the class consciousness of the proletariat. They asserted that the strike was the most effective means to win socio-economic reforms and bring about changes in politics. At the same time, they believed that it attracted converts and strengthened the union movement. The revolutionary syndicalists also argued that striking workers acquired initiative and combativeness, sentiments of unity and solidarity, and developed a heroic ethos of duty, dedication and sacrifice. The challenge of a strike, on the other hand, restored energy to the bourgeoisie: it transformed the property owners into aggressive, worthy opponents of the proletariat. As illusions of collaboration disappeared in the heat of battle, the revolutionary syndicaUsts predicted that the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would become more intense and intransigent.

The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the scientific – that is to say, the analytical and explanatory – historiography of workers' trade unions in individual industries. The question to which an answer is sought is, “What factors determine the success of a trade union of the workers in a particular branch of industry ?” A trade union of workers is here defined as a sales cartel for labour power. By the success of such a trade union is meant its recognition by the employers concerned as an agent selling the labour power of the workers it represents; the recognition becomes a fact when wages and other conditions of employment are determined in the framework of a national Collectieve Arbeids-Overeenkomst (CAO) – a collective labour agreement, in which the trade union is a party in a formal contract.

Von den verschiedenen Auslandsorganisationen sozialdemokratischer deutscher Arbeiter und Handwerker im neunzehnten Jahrhundert sind die drei Kopenhagener, der Deutsche social-demokratische Arbeiterverein (1875–77), die Deutsche Lesegesellschaft (1887–91) und der Deutsche Arbeiterverein Vorwärts (1894–1914) bislang von der historischen Forschung unbeachtet geblieben. Dies erscheint unberechtigt, denn, mag es auch zutreffen, dass die drei Vereine zu den weniger bedeutenden Auslandsorganisationen deutscher Sozialdemokraten gehörten, für die dänische Arbeiterbewegung war der älteste der drei Vereine von grosser Bedeutung. In der Mitte der siebziger Jahre des vorigen Jahrhunderts war er nicht nur das einzige Bindeglied der dänischen Arbeiterbewegung zwar weniger zur organisierten deutschen Sozialdemokratie als zur Ideenwelt deutscher Arbeiter und Handwerker, sondern zeitweilig auch das einzige Milieu innerhalb der dänischen Arbeiterbewegung, in dem theoretische Fragen diskutiert wurden. Die Aufgabe, diesen Verein darzustellen, erschien deshalb lohnend; dabei erwies es sich als notwendig, ihn in die Geschichte der dänischen Arbeiterbewegung, in die er voll integriert war, einzubetten.

Charles Hall's importance has been recognized by a number of scholars. He has been described by C. R. Fay as “the first of the early socialists”, and by Mark Blaug as “the first socialist critic of the industrial revolution”. According to Max Beer he provided “the first interpretation of the voice of rising Labour”, and Anton Menger regarded him as “the first socialist who saw in rent and interest unjust appropriations of the return of labour, and who explicitly claimed for the worker the undiminished product of his industry”.2 Menger, in his book The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour (first published in German in 1886), devoted three or four pages to Hall and drew attention to his early formulation of the theory of surplus value. Since then there have been several discussions of Hall's work, but almost without exception they have been quite brief: perhaps the most notable are those provided by H. S. Foxwell in his introduction to the English translation of Menger, and by Beer in his History of British Socialism H. L. Beales, who also wrote a few pages about him in his book The Early English Socialists, lamented some twenty years ago that Hall (in common with several other pioneers of socialism and democracy in Britain) had not yet found a biographer. In fact it seems unlikely, owing to the paucity of material, that a biography will ever be possible. But it is nonetheless surprising that Hall has received so little individual attention; and the author of a recent summary of his ideas (again in the context of a general history of socialism) could describe him as “ce précurseur quelque peu oublie”. It appears that an essay may usefully be written drawing together what is known about him and attempting a fuller examination of his writings than has been provided hitherto.