INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 174, 30 April 1872, Page 3

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

The telegraphic summaries of European news, whether by San Francisco or Suez, seldom fail to mention the International Society, its doings, intentions, and doctrines. By far the most intelligent view of the Internationale that we have met with is contained in a liberal and independent Berlin newspaper. The society, we are told, is organised, on the model of the Jesuit Order, in a severely despotic fashion. Strictly speaking, it was first projected in 1862, during the London Exhibition, when the refugees of all countries and the workmen who flocked thither from all parts of the world conceived tiic idea of founding an association of artisans without distinction of nationality. Two years afterwards, the Society was formally' constituted, and it is generally' believed that the programme to which it adheres was formulated by Karl Marx, who like other distinguished Germans, could evolve any' number of theories from the depths of his own consciousness. The Berlin paper to which we have referred says tiiat Marx is “ gifted with a special talent for organisation.” This may or may not be true ; but assuming that the programme of the Internationale was drawn up by him, it is clear that lie possesses a vivid imagination, by means of which lie suggests verytempting but utterly impracticable reforms to those who have everything to gain and nothing to lose by- a general and complete revolution. The fundamental idea of the Society’, remarks our Berlin contemporary, is that workmen shall entirely ignore political and religious questions, and pursue one single and common interest —the struggle against the capital. This description hardly coincides with the programme issued by r the society', but the discrepancy is not of sufficient moment to claim lengiitened notice. Politics, wo should say, are by no means entirely ignored. On the contrary', it seems to us that the Internationale aims at securing

as much political power as possible for its members—in fact a thorough ascendancy —in order that tho other objects which it professes to have in view may be the more readily attained. As to the constitution of the International Society, we are told that there is an English, an American, a French, a Belgian, an Italian, a Spanish, a Dutch, and a German section, the last including Austria and Switzerland. Under the name of Congress —we are quoting from the authority already named—a Parliament of the working classes assembles periodically, and peremptorily dictates all questions that concern the society as a whole. This Parliament, it appears, possesses legislative powers, and in all deputies its verdict is final. Co-existent with the

Parliament, and receiving its appointment therefrom, there is a Central Committee or high International Council, which forms a centre for the various subdivisions, and is at the same time the managing body of the organisation. This Council, it is further alleged, receives all correspondence and reports concerning the Society, draws up the programmes to be submitted to the Congress, and proposes resolutions. ]t orders strikes, sustains them with the resources of the Association, revokes them, and is, in short, the very soul of the organism, for everything is set in motion in" the Congress by its members and delegates. In addition to the Congress and the Central Committee but subordinate to them, there arc provincial councils for each section of the society. 'Hies are, as it were, the connecting links between the extremities and the heart of the movement, and from certain indications we infer that the sectional councils arc entrusted with the unpleasant work of collecting the revenue which the Central Committee disburses according to its own will and pleasure. The Supreme Council of the society has its seat in London, for the simple reason that “no continental State would tolerate a body of men who systematised civil war,” and it is said to be mainly composed of Englishmen and Germans. George Odger is the most prominent among the former, and Karl Marx is of course the chief of the latter, as well as the mainspring of the movement. It appears that Mazzini was for a long time wrongfully accused of being the “ intellectual originator” of the society. He protested, however, in very energetic language against its principles, and cs- ’ pecially against the acts of the Paris - Commune, an outcome of the luterna- • tionalc

Such, in effect, is the cons.it.i. ion of the International Society as described by tins Berlin journal, and with regard to its resources we get some information which may prove interesting. It claims to have constantly about half a million at its disposal for emergencies, such as strikes, but this docs not appear to be accepted as a true financial statement. In France, the Society claims to have 800,000 members, but a return made by' the ex-imperial Government, in June 1870, gives the number at little more that half. Belgium, it is asserted, furnishes 200,000 members ; Switzerland, 60,000 ; Italy, 100,000 ; Germany, 300,000 ; Spain, 40.000; and Great Britain only 80,000. It is alleged, and not without authority, that out of their hard savings the infatuated workmen furnish the members of the Central Council with the means of living agreeably in London, “just as during the reign of the Commune in Paris, the uuvrierx fought against the for the daily pay of thirty itoust, while the Communal chiefs were banquetting at the Hotel do Yille.” In fact, if we may judge from the quarrels that have taken place between Odger and the other leading men of the Society in London, it is pretty- clear that the working men who become members have to pay' the piper, while a few clothe thcmselvc-s, so to speak, in purple and fine linen and fare sumptuously every- day. These cozeners, who thus live on the fruits of other men’s labors, are the very' worst enemies which the working classes have. The struggle between labor and capital will adjust itself through the operation of laws which, in a sense, are immutable, and though the International may- point to the results of recent strikes in Great Britain as a convincing proof of its power, thoughtful working men will most probably come to the conclusion that these results, taking them altogether and weighing them carefully, afford a still more convincing proof of its unbearable tyranny. —Canterbury Timex.