https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/rules.htm

Considering,

That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves, that the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule;

That the economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of the means of labor – that is, the source of life – lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation, and political dependence;

That the economical emancipation of the working classes is therefore the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a means;

That all efforts aiming at the great end hitherto failed from the want of solidarity between the manifold divisions of labor in each country, and from the absence of a fraternal bond of union between the working classes of different countries;

That the emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists, and depending for its solution on the concurrence, practical and theoretical, of the most advanced countries;

That the present revival of the working classes in the most industrious countries of Europe, while it raises a new hope, gives solemn warning against a relapse into the old errors, and calls for the immediate combination of the still disconnected movements;

For these reasons –

The International Working Men's Association has been founded.

It declares:

That all societies and individuals adhering to it will acknowledge truth, justice, and morality [See my NOTE 1 KOBH] as the basis of their conduct toward each other and toward all men, without regard to color, creed, or nationality;

That it acknowledges no rights without duties, no duties without rights


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/10/27.htm

To conquer political power has, therefore, become the great duty of the working classes. They seem to have comprehended this, for in England, Germany, Italy, and France, there have taken place simultaneous revivals, and simultaneous efforts are being made at the political organization of the workingmen’s party.

One element of success they possess — numbers; but numbers weigh in the balance only if united by combination and led by knowledge. Past experience has shown how disregard of that bond of brotherhood which ought to exist between the workmen of different countries, and incite them to stand firmly by each other in all their struggles for emancipation, will be chastised by the common discomfiture of their incoherent efforts. This thought prompted the workingmen of different countries assembled on September 28, 1864, in public meeting at St. Martin’s Hall, to found the International Association.

Another conviction swayed that meeting.

If the emancipation of the working classes requires their fraternal concurrence, how are they to fulfill that great mission with a foreign policy in pursuit of criminal designs, playing upon national prejudices, and squandering in piratical wars the people’s blood and treasure? It was not the wisdom of the ruling classes, but the heroic resistance to their criminal folly by the working classes of England, that saved the west of Europe from plunging headlong into an infamous crusade for the perpetuation and propagation of slavery on the other side of the Atlantic. The shameless approval, mock sympathy, or idiotic indifference with which the upper classes of Europe have witnessed the mountain fortress of the Caucasus falling a prey to, and heroic Poland being assassinated by, Russia: the immense and unresisted encroachments of that barbarous power, whose head is in St. Petersburg, and whose hands are in every cabinet of Europe, have taught the working classes the duty to master themselves the mysteries of international politics; to watch the diplomatic acts of their respective governments; to counteract them, if necessary, by all means in their power; when unable to prevent, to combine in simultaneous denunciations, and to vindicate the simple laws or morals and justice, which ought to govern the relations of private individuals [see my NOTE 2 KOBH], as the rules paramount of the intercourse of nations.

The fight for such a foreign policy forms part of the general struggle for the emancipation of the working classes.

Proletarians of all countries, unite!

NOTE 1:
That all societies and individuals adhering to it will acknowledge truth, justice, and morality as the basis of their conduct toward each other and toward all men

Marx writes to Engels that he was compelled to insert the phrase "truth, justice, and morality" and that he did so where it could do no conceivable harm.

NOTE 2:
and to vindicate the simple laws or morals and justice, which ought to govern the relations of private individuals, as the rules paramount of the intercourse of nations.

I do not think this translation captures what Marx is saying. Where it says simple relations "ought" to govern relations it actually means something like "the simple relations which *rightly* govern relations. Thus Marx is calling for international relations to fall under those same simple rules. By that reading, I don't believe it represents the same concession by Marx as the quote in NOTE 1.

The first quote is the preamble to the General Rules for the IWMA which was drafted exclusively by Marx and immediately precedes the rules themselves, which are also drafted by Marx.

The second quote is closing of his Inaugural Address to the IWMA after he has outlined the enormous expansion of industry and the even more enormous expansion in poverty and declining living standards from 1848-1864 (including scientific reports detailing how much carbon and nitrogen are required for bare survival). This reflects the utter failure of 1848 and its revolutions. However, Marx then turns to certain gains which include the 10 Hour Workday and, more importantly, a cooperative labor movement (a la Owen). Marx holds no hope for the movement itself and explains it cooption, but points to the ideal as a precursor of a new organization of labor -- not hired but ASSOCIATED.

His closing lines are above. It is important to note that Russia represented the ultimate force of reaction in that time period, perhaps akin to Nazi Germany or the present day US (those aren't perfect comparisons but they put you in the right frame of mind).

The first quote is the preamble to the General Rules for the IWMA which was drafted exclusively by Marx and immediately precedes the rules themselves, which are also drafted by Marx.

The second quote is closing of his Inaugural Address to the IWMA after he has outlined the enormous expansion of industry and the even more enormous expansion in poverty and declining living standards from 1848-1864 (including scientific reports detailing how much carbon and nitrogen are required for bare survival). This reflects the utter failure of 1848 and its revolutions. However, Marx then turns to certain gains which include the 10 Hour Workday and, more importantly, a cooperative labor movement (a la Owen). Marx holds no hope for the movement itself and explains it cooption, but points to the ideal as a precursor of a new organization of labor -- not hired but ASSOCIATED.

His closing lines are above. It is important to note that Russia represented the ultimate force of reaction in that time period, perhaps akin to Nazi Germany or the present day US (those aren't perfect comparisons but they put you in the right frame of mind).

A timely reminder, the International preceded the sort of mass unions which we often tend to think are necessary to get anything done. It was the necessary precursor, a gang of organizers, agitators, visionaries of disparate origin and squabbling doctrines united by the need for a revolution in human relations. Every explosion needs a spark.

I don't think I agree with a single word that you wrote BP. I'll let it sit for a bit longer for others to see before adding my commentary.

I don't think I agree with a single word that you wrote BP. I'll let it sit for a bit longer for others to see before adding my commentary.

By all means, please explain.

PS, What others?

The problem is that what you write vastly understates the importance of the IWMA in its own day and minimizes its on-going significance after its dissolution. Yes, by the end of Engel's lifetime -- even compared to the time of Marx's death -- the landscape had changed immensely. But it is equally true that the issues that split the IWMA were not only repeated in the Second International, they were allowed to fester in a way that Marx and Engels refused to countenance. In effect, a step BACKWARDS. This development somewhat obscures all of the practical/tactical lessons that were absorbed into the First International.

The subsequent advance was left to the handful of dissidents (Lenin, Luxembourg, Trotsky, Connolly..), a development which more or less belies what is traditionally upheld as the heritage of the First International (which you reference).

Rigorous discipline, lack of individual adventuring, restriction of independent agitation outside of the Association. The aim was to build a tight POLITICAL fighting force even if it couldn't battle directly by force of arms. The passages I quote above are designed to arrive at exactly this conclusion: the necessity of such a political fighting force. This is something other than only trade unionism (unions were naturally a constituent part of the IWMA of course).

You also make far too much allowance for certain rogue elements within the membership. The core were the English and French workers (at least for a time -- 8 years perhaps). These were professional men, factory workers and stray ideologists and constituted a proletarian foundation (the chair of the first meeting, a professor, is an interesting case who is mentioned in the linked pages on marxists.org)

The documents in the opening post (which are companion pieces for all intents and purposes) reflect plans for a tightly disciplined militant organization with subversive aims that ultimately include the overthrow of existing relations through political activity. Much, much too far reaching to elicit commonplaces such as "a timely reminder". We are talking about nothing less than the formation of "the party of the new type" and, more, it was initiated by English and French workers and NOT by Marx although he almost immediately commandeered the leadership position and steered/shepered the organization in that direction (this speaks to the clarity and power of Marx's vision vs the utter incoherence and confusion of all other theories, ideas, conceptions, etc).

PS it should be noted that Marx almost never involved himself in causes or organizations that he himself did not have a hand in founding. It is therefore very notable that he made an exception here.

The problem is that what you write vastly understates the importance of the IWMA in its own day and minimizes its on-going significance after its dissolution. Yes, by the end of Engel's lifetime -- even compared to the time of Marx's death -- the landscape had changed immensely. But it is equally true that the issues that split the IWMA were not only repeated in the Second International, they were allowed to fester in a way that Marx and Engels refused to countenance. In effect, a step BACKWARDS. This development somewhat obscures all of the practical/tactical lessons that were absorbed into the First International.

The subsequent advance was left to the handful of dissidents (Lenin, Luxembourg, Trotsky, Connolly..), a development which more or less belies what is traditionally upheld as the heritage of the First International (which you reference).

Rigorous discipline, lack of individual adventuring, restriction independent agitation outside of the Association.

Well, I don't think I minimized, rather punctuated. My point being that we grouse forever that 'there ain't no unions', at least the radical sort we need, that in order to get there organization is needed at a higher level in order to make said unions possible.

Your last sentence is spot on. 'Rigorous discipline' seems to be exactly what is usually lacking, organizationally as well as personally, but nothing else will do. A 'hard sell' at any time to those with pretences of 'intellect' and double hard in an age where 'do your own thing' is the mantra. For all the bullshit the 60's were largely counter-revolutionary. Hindsight is golden.

First, discuss a bit, if you don't mind, your first "note".


Marx writes to Engels that he was compelled to insert the phrase "truth, justice, and morality" and that he did so where it could do no conceivable harm.

What was the "conceivable harm" mentioned here?

Second, the IWMA always struck me as a huge loss when it dissolved. I don't know what the bourgeois reaction would be to the re-establishment of something similar, today. With all the "terrorist" laws and dictatorial agencies at work internationally, an extra-governmental international working class organization would probably bring hell to the membership. One of the outcomes of the US roll in world domination is that most of the world wide working class already feel a real sense of unity - at least in opposition to US policies. The comparison of Imperial Russia, Nazi Germany and present day US is apt.

First, discuss a bit, if you don't mind, your first "note".



What was the "conceivable harm" mentioned here?


'Truth, justice, morality'. These words did the same harm then as they do now. They are philistine buzzwords that mire things in abstraction and bourgeoisie sentimentality. At best they are a distraction and meaningless, at worst they are a serious counterforce that imperils the ability to organize and act with a militant/subversive posture.

As a concrete expression of this, Marx steadfastly disallowed any groups that appealed to "freedom", "peace", etc such as the one formed by Mill (tell me about it..). "Humanitarian" groups in other words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Peace_and_Freedom

Incidentally, I believe the "rights and duties" remark in the opening preamble was also foisted on Marx. Either way, those things are quibbles.

Well, I don't think I minimized, rather punctuated. My point being that we grouse forever that 'there ain't no unions', at least the radical sort we need, that in order to get there organization is needed at a higher level in order to make said unions possible.

As you know, I am prone to hyperbole to make a point. The principles that underlay the founding of the IWMA were also the same ones that ensured its demise. By its very open nature, loose conspiratorial and rebellious groups could gain entry and a foothold -- and were bound to rebel against the doctrinaire, centralized and anti-conspiratorial strictures of the Association. It was simply a battle that had to be fought. (as an interesting aside, the Bakuninite riff on the State sounds exactly like the Trotskyite take on the SU -- so uncanny it could be word for word. I'll try to find some quotes but someties you have to go to some pretty distasteful places like libcom.org to get them)

'Truth, justice, morality'. These words did the same harm then as they do now. They are philistine buzzwords that mire things in abstraction and bourgeoisie sentimentality. At best they are a distraction and meaningless, at worst they are a serious counterforce that imperils the ability to organize and act with a militant/subversive posture.

As a concrete expression of this, Marx steadfastly disallowed any groups that appealed to "freedom", "peace", etc such as the one formed by Mill (tell me about it..). "Humanitarian" groups in other words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Peace_and_Freedom

Incidentally, I believe the "rights and duties" remark in the opening preamble was also foisted on Marx. Either way, those things are quibbles.

I see and I get it.


That the economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of the means of labor – that is, the source of life – lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation, and political dependence;

This is the fist in the statement. "Servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation" - makes me grind my teeth. When placed in these precise terms, no working person could deny the reality of this. I would like to hit a few hundred million people over the head with this.