International: A Short Discussion with World Socialism Scholars on Why First International was Dissolved By Its Leaders?

Chen Shuoyung

Date, April 2020

The Journal of World Socialism Review: The development of World socialism is closely related to developments in capitalism, and the world proletariat is closely related to the world bourgeoisie. Therefore, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and their relationship constitute the basic relation in the evolution of capitalist society and development of world socialist movement.

Wei Dingguang: Regarding the reasons for the dissolution of the First International, the popular explanations in China in the past has been: the harsh suppression by reactionary governments of various countries after the failure of the Paris Commune. The struggle between different internal ideologies and factions and the resulting split; and the new developments in the European and American workers’ movement. But as a different view I want to argue that the vigorous development of European nationalism under the conditions of capitalist globalization in the 1860s and 1870s, and the universal establishment and consolidation of nation-states, were the fundamental two reasons that led to the inevitable dissolution of the International. The entire history of modern human civilization is inseparable from the formation, evolution and influence of “nation”. Eric Hobsbawm said: If you do not understand the concept of “nation” and the words derived from it, it is simply impossible to explain the history of the last two centuries of mankind. In ancient Europe, the so-called “English”, “French”, etc. were mainly geographical concepts, not political entities. For the industrially developed nations in Western Europe, global colonial expansion was carried out under the national flag. The need for competition constantly strengthened the economic dependence on the nation-state, and they always experienced the expansion of national superiority in the process of conquering the world.  For backward countries, the process of resisting foreign invasion or being colonized is inevitably a period of comprehensive formation and unprecedented rise of national consciousness and “motherland” consciousness.

Nation or Nationalism issues in Internal Divisons

It can be said that the struggle between Marxist and non-Marxist ideas and factions that we have summarized in the past was actually mainly revolved around national or nationalism issue.  For example, as a major member group of the International, the British Trade Unions obviously disagreed with the views of the International General Committee represented by Marx on the Irish issue. Marx believed that the task of the International was “to give priority to the conflict between Britain and Ireland everywhere and to openly stand on the side of Ireland everywhere.”  However, out of the need to safeguard the interests of their own nation, the Trade Unions showed a narrow nationalist position everywhere, which eventually led to a complete break between the International General Committee and the British Trade Unions. For example, one of the important differences of opinion with Proudhonism was how to deal with the Polish issue.

The General Council headed by Marx advocated the independence of Poland, because from the perspective of the International, and wrote: “national independence is the basis of all international cooperation”; the Poles “can only become an international nation when they truly become a national state.” However, since Germany belonged to the nation that occupied Poland, the Proudhonists, from the standpoint of “Germans”, clearly opposed the Polish people’s struggle for national independence and rejected international’s support for the Polish national liberation movement. In addition, in the middle and late stages, workers’ organizations of Mediterranean coastal countries represented by Italy became active within the First International, and the Italian group which was prone to nationalism opposed the “decision monopoly and centralized attitude of a few people controlling the International”. Since because “this attitude of the Italian group has been combined with the already inflated nationalism”, this attitude resulted in a split and resistance to Marx’s views. The reason for the split of the First International was certainly not entirely due to national and nationalist issues, but in any case, it is a fundamental factor that cannot be ignored.

Germany

In 1869, the German Social Democratic Workers’ Party was established. It was the first proletarian party in the world to exist within the scope of a nation-state. In 1875, it merged with the Lassallean faction. In the “Gotha Program” adopted by the 1875 merger conference of the two factions, this German party clearly positioned itself as “first of all to carry out activities within the scope of the modern nation-state” and regarded “the international fraternal union of all nations” as a secondary or later matter.

In the “Gotha Program” clearly positioned itself as “first of all to carry out activities within the scope of the modern nation-state” and regarded “the international fraternal union of all nations” as a secondary or later matter. Marx pointed out that this party’s “Program” was colored and permeated with Lassalle’s “most narrow national view”. Marx criticized: Since the “modern nation-state” “is itself economically within the ‘scope of the world market’ and politically within the ‘scope of the state system'”, then as a proletarian party, it cannot ignore its “international responsibilities”.  Unfortunately, however, the “Program” “does not mention a single word about the international responsibilities of the German working class!”  “In fact, the internationalism of this program is incalculably worse than that of the free trade faction.” If we think about it in the context of the above, we will not find it strange at all about the national positions of the German Social Democratic Party. In 1875, the year when the International announced its dissolution, Marx recognized that the International Workingmen’s Association was “the first attempt to establish a central organ” for the international unity of the proletariat; at the same time, he also pointed out that “this attempt… after the failure of the Paris Commune, could no longer continue in its first historical form.”

What was the root cause of dissolving?

Marx did not give a clear explanation, or the matter was not so clear at the time, or Marx was unwilling to admit it. But looking from today, it seems that it is mainly due to the universal establishment and consolidation of national states. In the late 19th century, not only the major capitalist industrial developed countries in Western Europe and North America were nationalized, but also the industrially underdeveloped countries (such as Eastern Europe and Northern Europe) and underdeveloped countries began to establish modern nation-states. Under the modern state form, whether it is the competition between developed capitalist countries or the confrontation between developed and underdeveloped countries, it would inevitably form a serious obstacle to the international unity of the proletariat and make the international communist movement continue to be adversely affected by the “narrow national view”.

However, because the problem has just begun to emerge, perhaps because of the subjective overemphasis on the international unity of the proletariat, as Hobsbawm pointed out, Marx believed that the issue of nation and its national state was “secondary” to socialists at that time. We certainly cannot be too harsh on Marx, because it is often the case that the understanding and research of practical problems lag behind the development of facts themselves.  The national issue has already played an important role in European politics and world politics in the 19th century, and the entire international academic community paid attention to it and conducted in-depth research in the 20th century.

 In 1907, Austrian social democratic theorist Otto Bauer pointed out that “science has almost completely left the national question to lyric poets, essayists, and orators in national assemblies, parliaments, and beer tables.” However, what was secondary in Marx’s thought later became the core of the debate in the Second International. Because it constituted a fundamental challenge and even conflict to the basic theory of socialism and its movement’s development requirements, it was the social democrats in the Second International, such as Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Otto Bauer, and later Lenin, who first conducted scientific research on the issue of nation and nationalism. Engels later concluded that the International Workingmen’s Association “belongs to the Second Empire period” and that this “old form has become outdated.” Engels’s summary was linked to the understanding of the newly emerging modern states, but this idea was long ignored by later generations. If we think about the many setbacks and lessons learned in the international communist movement in the 20th century, especially the mistakes of the Third International, we will have a more accurate grasp of the nature of the problem and its consequences. Lenin later commented on the First International in 1919: “It laid the foundation for the international organization of workers and prepared the workers for a revolutionary attack on capital”; “It laid the foundation for the international proletariat’s struggle for socialism”.

Please Download for Full Text