International:Epochal Reasons Behind the Closure of the “First International” Including New Nationalism
Prof. Wei Dingguang, CASS expert on world socialism movement
Abstract: In the 1860s and 1870s, the new development of globalization and industrialization in Europe and North America promoted the emergence of the First International. At the same time, the rise of modern nations and nationalism in this context became an important reason for the split and eventual disintegration of the First International. The universal establishment and consolidation of “modern nation states” further weakened the power of the internal unity of the First International, making national and state positions become the basic propositions of workers’ organizations in various countries. Since then, the international communist movement has been constantly affected by “narrow national 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.
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. In this article I will 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.
Keywords: First International, Modern Nationalism
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.
The establishment of the International Workingmen’s Association (also known as the First International or simply “International”) in September 1864 was an important event in the history of the international communist movement. Marx and Engels once placed high political expectations on it and wanted to make it “a center for communication and cooperation between workers’ groups in various countries pursuing a common goal, namely the protection, development and complete liberation of the working class.” Marx devoted all his efforts to protecting and promoting the growth of the International, especially the struggle with various internal thoughts and factions, which consumed almost 10 years of his energy. However, the painstaking maintenance ultimately led to its inevitable dissolution.
Why did Marx fail to achieve the political goals that he had worked so hard for the International?
The popular explanation for the dissolution of the International is mainly attributed to the suppression and encirclement of reactionary governments in various countries after the failure of the Paris Commune; the struggle between different internal ideologies and factions and the resulting split; and the so-called new development of the European and American workers’ movement. Re-studying history, I have found that the vigorous development of European nationalism and the universal establishment and consolidation of nation-states under the conditions of globalization in the 1860s and 1870s can be the fundamental reason why the International was inevitably heading for dissolution.
Part 1.
The establishment of the International was first of all the inevitable result of the industrialization of European countries and the great development of globalization in the mid-19th century. Industrialization has greatly changed the class structure of European countries. In the 1860s, the number of industrial workers in Europe reached 8.74 million, and the number of handicraft workers was 11.23 million. Due to the improvement of the level of large-scale machine production and the training of the factory system, the organization, consciousness and militancy of the working class in major industrial countries have been strengthened compared with before the 1850s. Therefore, starting from the London construction workers’ strike in July 1859, the workers’ movement flourished in major European countries and influenced the rotation of the European political stage in various organizational activities. The cross-border flow of people and the intensification of competition between countries driven by globalization have also made workers’ organizations that have initially achieved domestic unity realize the need to further strengthen international unity. For example, when British workers went to strike, capitalists often disrupt the strike by hiring workers from other European countries. Therefore, as one of the initiators of the international movement, the British trade union needed to rely on the mutual solidarity of workers from various countries to maintain the results of the strike. However, industrialization and globalization have not only brought about the development of the workers’ movement, but also the rise of national movements; in fact, the 1860s and 1870s were the period of rapid growth of modern nations and the prevalence of nationalism in Europe. Therefore, what we have long ignored is that the international reality has faced severe challenges from the issue of nation and nationalism since its birth.
Modern ethnology regards ethnic group and nation as two concepts that are both related and different. “Ethnic group”, which was once understood as a nation, mainly refers to a human group formed by differences in religious beliefs, language, customs and habits; while the concept of “nation” “reflects the combination of subjective attitudes and objective political will environment”, and its prominent features are strong subjective consciousness and clear regionality. 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.
From the 16th to the 18th century, the expansion of trade, commerce and market relations, the reform of technology, especially military technology, various political thoughts and the restoration of classical political thought, the Renaissance and other factors led to the situation of disputes among heroes. Napoleon’s conquest and counter-conquest across Europe greatly stimulated and triggered a wave of nationalism. 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.
In his 1913 article “Critical Remarks on the National Question”, Lenin pointed out: “Developing capitalism has two historical trends on the national question. The first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the establishment of national states. The second is the development and increasing frequency of various contacts between nations, the elimination of national barriers, and the formation of international unity in capital, general economic life, politics, science, etc.”
The two trends summarized by Lenin happened to exist at the same time in the late 19th century. So, on the one hand, there was the birth of the International, and on the other hand, there was the prosperity of nations and the great development of nationalism. And at this time, the national question was no longer limited to industrially developed countries. Mazzini, who once led the Italian national independence, believed that there were only eleven “real nations” in Europe in 1850. However, after the 1870s, nationalist movements could even emerge in unexpected remote corners. Moreover, the biggest feature of the national movement during this period was the identification of nation with state, the splitting of “ethnic groups”, and the establishment of nation states became an increasingly common phenomenon. Therefore, “British”, “French”, “Germans” and so on, which were originally mainly geographical concepts, also have rich political connotations.
Compared with political trends such as socialism and liberalism, nationalism is more likely to influence the thoughts and feelings of the majority of citizens and is expressed and manifested in international contacts and exchanges. The idea of the world’s working class achieving international unity had already emerged in the late 18th century, for example, in the works of Thomas Paine and the Manifesto of the British Correspondence Association, and the utopian socialist Gracchus Babeuf also discussed this issue. In the first half of the 19th century, three international organizations that reflected the workers’ desire for unity emerged one after another: the League of the Just, the Brotherhood of Democrats, and the International Association. However, these organizations did not have much influence and were all very “short-lived”. The fundamental reason lies in the contradiction between the workers’ tendency to social unity and the activities of political exiles, which were mostly nationalistic. The coexistence of the workers’ internal unity requirements and nationalist expressions in international organizations is essentially consistent with the two historical trends of globalization revealed by Lenin above. By the time of the First International, under the background of the universal establishment of nation-states driven by nationalism, on the one hand, unity has developed from the previous behavior of individuals or small groups to the overall organizational participation focusing on the country as a unit. On the other hand, nationalism also has more nationalist characteristics. The reason for the establishment of the International was that the workers’ organizations of Britain, France and Germany supported Poland in launching a national uprising against Russia. However, during the existence of the International, national issues often became the focus of debate between different factions. 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 nation 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 nation.” 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.
Please Download for Full Text