If only the Lassalleans took over the First International

[Die Neue Zeit]

"One of the most embarrassing inheritances of Marxism is the idea that the system has to collapse inevitably into our waiting arms. It's a substitute for politics. If you assume there's a scientific inevitability, then you don't have to do anything." (Doug Henwood)

Leaving aside the apparent lack of knowledge on the part of this Left Business Observer guru regarding the difference between orthodox, very political Marxism and academic and variants of non-orthodox Marxism, now I understand why blokes like Eugen Duhring, Joseph Schumpeter, Jonathan Nitzan, and Shimshon Bichler prefer "force theory," politics driving economics, and power theories of value. It's a mistaken "politicist" reaction to economic determinism.

It all started with the dispute between Marx and Bakunin in the International Workingmen's Association after the Paris Commune. Neither side was saintly. Bakunin wanted an "invisible dictatorship" to take over. Marx, meanwhile, preferred maneuvering around to liquidate the organization altogether, a heinous crime against working-class organization.

Afterwards, a more spontaneist Marx could declare that "No revolution can be made by a party, but by a nation" before vacillating once again to aid in the efforts of the fledgling French Workers Party.

What if instead the Lassalleans in Germany, such as Jean-Baptista von Schweitzer, and elsewhere regrouped and took over the International Workingmen's Association instead, preserving the need for independent worker-class organization? Granted, they would have most likely brought with them their positions of "strict centralization," "democratic centralization," hostility towards "self-help" cooperativism, and combining control freakery over dubious trade unions with hostility towards trade-union-based labour movement, but it was through their efforts that worker-class movements beyond mere labour movements differentiated themselves sharply from the liberal bourgeoisie.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I don't know if it would of made a difference. Lassallean ideology was pretty popular in Germany and with the immigrants that migrated to the US, but it died out pretty quickly. I think taking over the Internationale may would have made that death more painfully slow. The Internationale was also so diverse, would it have made a difference? Even though a simplification of the the organization is easy (Bakunin VS Marx), the groups behind it were various and facing different situations (types of work/industry, discrimination, government, many ideologies, etc.) The Germans were strictly Marxist, the English were moderate trade unionists, the Spanish and Italians were rural anarchists, the French were influenced by Proudhon, etc. I don't know if at the time the Lassalleans would be able to grab the reins and lead all these different groups. Bakunin and Marx spent a lot of time just trying to build an army against one another rather then uniting in common causes. Their relationship was very odd. Point is: I don't think the Lasalleans would of made a difference. Once Lassalle died, his influence died with him. An ideology shouldn't die when a man does, but it happened.
I'm also weary of Lasalle's feelings towards unions and immediate gains. Would his feelings on that subject be rejected by a lot of the working-class?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know if it would of made a difference. Lassallean ideology was pretty popular in Germany and with the immigrants that migrated to the US, but it died out pretty quickly. I think taking over the Internationale may would have made that death more painfully slow.

My personal take is that there would have been continuous working-class organization until 1914. In any event the International Workingmen's Association was doomed to fold. It's just a question of when.


The Internationale was also so diverse, would it have made a difference? Even though a simplification of the the organization is easy (Bakunin VS Marx), the groups behind it were various and facing different situations (types of work/industry, discrimination, government, many ideologies, etc.) The Germans were strictly Marxist, the English were moderate trade unionists, the Spanish and Italians were rural anarchists, the French were influenced by Proudhon, etc.

The tred-iunionisty English section, who may have joined more or less on a "British jobs for British workers" platform (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/history-of-the-marxist-internationals-part-1-the-iwa/), departed after the debate on the Paris Commune. They didn't want to be associated with the Red Doctor.


I don't know if at the time the Lassalleans would be able to grab the reins and lead all these different groups.

Lassalle died in 1864. That was a few years before from the Marx-Bakunin struggle, so they had time to organize within under Schweitzer.


Once Lassalle died, his influence died with him. An ideology shouldn't die when a man does, but it happened.

So, apart from a very, very conciliatory gesture by the SAPD towards the ADAV in 1875, why did the Gotha Program come about as it did?


I'm also weary of Lassalle's feelings towards unions and immediate gains. Would his feelings on that subject be rejected by a lot of the working-class?

Lassalle was far from being a left-communist. He didn't say anything explicitly against unions, but a position on them can be derived from his hostility towards "self help" cooperative efforts egged on by the liberal bourgeoisie. Lassalle stressed political action, vulgarized this in the slogan of universal suffrage, and aimed to transform the ADAV itself into a political party proper. In hindsight, his two-issue platform (universal suffrage and worker coops with "state aid") can be characterized as "immediate gains."

[NoOneIsIllegal]

My personal take is that there would have been continuous working-class organization until 1914. In any event the International Workingmen's Association was doomed to fold. It's just a question of when.
Fair enough. I'm not too familar with Lassalle but I thought it was a popular theory in Germany that died out in the late 19th century. They could of controlled the Internationale, but unless they reshaped, reorganized, and educated the organization, it was doomed to fail. Maybe if they captured the Internationale their fate could of been different, as they could of spread their influence to outside of Germany's borders.

The tred-iunionisty English section, who may have joined more or less on a "British jobs for British workers" platform (http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/history-of-the-marxist-internationals-part-1-the-iwa/), departed after the debate on the Paris Commune. They didn't want to be associated with the Red Doctor.
My mistake on time-lines and events. I need to brush up and write more notes :blushing:

Lassalle died in 1864. That was a few years before from the Marx-Bakunin struggle, so they had time to organize within under Schweitzer.
See what I wrote above.

So, apart from a very, very conciliatory gesture by the SAPD towards the ADAV in 1875, why did the Gotha Program come about as it did?
I think I was just owned. Like I said, I'm shaky with some history. But to what extent did Lassallean thought dominate German politics? (and any other countries politics if it did extend anywhere else?) I was under the impression it was a sizeable faction of the Social Democratic Party until his death, and then the other two factions (Social Democrats and Marxists) remained.

Lassalle was far from being a left-communist. He didn't say anything explicitly against unions, but a position on them can be derived from his hostility towards "self help" cooperative efforts egged on by the liberal bourgeoisie. Lassalle stressed political action, vulgarized this in the slogan of universal suffrage, and aimed to transform the ADAV itself into a political party proper. In hindsight, his two-issue platform (universal suffrage and worker coops with "state aid") can be characterized as "immediate gains."
I definitely wasn't calling him a left-communist. I always thought he was in the middle between Social Democracy and Marxism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that he believed in (even coined the term) the Iron Law of Wages, essentially believing that what unions aimed for was pointless. Lassalle believed any immediate gains, such as benefits and higher wages, weren't important because the price of living would be raised as well. So he took a more political/electoral route towards socialism rather than economic/labor. I don't doubt he believed in other immediate gains, but for the average laborer at their job, I thought he thought any gains there was pointless. If I was told that a person didn't believe in higher wages while capitalism existed, I would be concerned of following him/her. But you seem to have more knowledge on the subject, so I won't be surprised if you can find a mistake in what I posted :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Fair enough. I'm not too familar with Lassalle

[...]

My mistake on time-lines and events. I need to brush up and write more notes :blushing:

[...]

I think I was just owned. Like I said, I'm shaky with some history.

[...]

But you seem to have more knowledge on the subject, so I won't be surprised if you can find a mistake in what I posted :lol:

Relax. This is a learning process about labour history for the benefit of the board's posters.


I'm not too familar with Lassalle but I thought it was a popular theory in Germany that died out in the late 19th century.

One of the key problems with Lassalle was that he was a charismatic figure who promoted a really bloated personality cult around himself during his lifetime:

http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/ghipubs/bu/028/b28hardtwigframe.html


The clearest example of such practices was the cult of Ferdinand Lassalle, which unmistakably borrowed from the Catholic veneration of saints. Pictures of Lassalle decorated the homes of workers, the song of the Lassalleans studied by Vernon Lidtke incorporated many passages from church hymns verbatim, and the Lassallean "profession of faith" adopted the formulations of the Christian catechism:

I believe in Ferdinand Lassalle,
The Messiah of the nineteenth century,
In the social-political rebirth
of my destitute people
In the indisputable dogmas of the working class
preached by Ferdinand Lassalle, etc...

As is well known, the Lassalle cult came under attack from the August Bebel-Wilhelm Liebknecht wing of the workers' movement; but in later years Bebel himself came to be idolized, and his picture was carried in many processions. In their quest for self-affirmation, socialist workers at party gatherings adopted many of the features of Christian congregations, and they inserted elements of church rites into the staging of the Labor Day celebration on May 1.

Lassalleanism as a political ideology eventually withered, while Lassalle the "saint" lived on as a harmless icon. The naming of Italian sons "Lassalo" and Italian daughters "Marxina" undoubtedly occurred after their respective deaths, but this was in fact a foreshadow of the posthumous Lenin cult.


I definitely wasn't calling him a left-communist. I always thought he was in the middle between Social Democracy and Marxism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that he believed in (even coined the term) the Iron Law of Wages

Indeed. He borrowed from Ricardo and gave his ideas an agitational edge.

Contemporarily, I speak of the Iron Law of Disproportionate Immiseration instead of the dull and dry "relative immiseration/impoverishment."


essentially believing that what unions aimed for was pointless. Lassalle believed any immediate gains, such as benefits and higher wages, weren't important because the price of living would be raised as well

Not quite. The main driver behind Ricardo's ideas was population growth: more labour supply, less wages to go around.


So he took a more political/electoral route towards socialism rather than economic/labor. I don't doubt he believed in other immediate gains, but for the average laborer at their job, I thought he thought any gains there was pointless. If I was told that a person didn't believe in higher wages while capitalism existed, I would be concerned of following him/her.

I have an old thread in the History forum calling him the first "Anti-Economist" (to use Lenin's word "economism"). I would think that he believed in other immediate political gains (like abolition of the standing army), but that economic gains per se were pointless.

[Zanthorus]

Bakunin wanted an "invisible dictatorship" to take over.

No, the 'invisible dictatorship' was supposed to be the dictatorship of the Bakuninist elite over the masses during the social revolution. Bakunin wanted the International to become a federated organisation with the General Council losing all functions besides that of a statistical body. Marx and Engels suspected him of foul play since just a couple of years earlier he had been all in favour of greater centralisation of the International, in fact I believe it was actually Bakunin who first suggested an increase in the powers of the Council. But anyway, his twists and turns led them to suspect that he was trying to take over the International, and indeed they found evidence that Bakunin's old Alliance was still in existence (Although there is some debate as to wether the evidence was just a product of Bakunin's conspiratorial fantasies or wether the organisation was actually still in existence). There is also the fact that he saw himself and the latin sections of the International as victims of a 'dire conspiracy of German and Russian jews'.


Marx, meanwhile, preferred maneuvering around to liquidate the organization altogether, a heinous crime against working-class organization

This is ridiculous, the International was collapsing on it's own. The French section had been outlawed after the Paris Commune and it's members were either killed, exiled or emigrated before the police could catch them. The English trade-unionists were falling under the influence of Gladstone's liberal party. The american sections were being infiltrated by middle-class spiritualists. The factional squabbles between Proudhonists, Blanquists, Bakuninists and Communists were making it impossible to do anything. The International wasn't 'liquidated' anyway, Engels proposed to move the General Council to New York where there wouldn't be so many blazing rows between English and French or German and Spanish delegates. Since Marx himself was the only one really holding the thing together anyway, once it was out of his guiding hand it formally dissolved itself in 1876.

[ZeroNowhere]

Afterwards, a more spontaneist Marx could declare that "No revolution can be made by a party, but by a nation" before vacillating once again to aid in the efforts of the fledgling French Workers Party.The 'more spontaneist Marx' who clearly promoted workers' parties in the same interview which you quote as somehow contrary to support of the French Workers' Party?

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, the 'invisible dictatorship' was supposed to be the dictatorship of the Bakuninist elite over the masses during the social revolution. Bakunin wanted the International to become a federated organisation with the General Council losing all functions besides that of a statistical body. Marx and Engels suspected him of foul play since just a couple of years earlier he had been all in favour of greater centralisation of the International, in fact I believe it was actually Bakunin who first suggested an increase in the powers of the Council. But anyway, his twists and turns led them to suspect that he was trying to take over the International, and indeed they found evidence that Bakunin's old Alliance was still in existence (Although there is some debate as to wether the evidence was just a product of Bakunin's conspiratorial fantasies or wether the organisation was actually still in existence). There is also the fact that he saw himself and the latin sections of the International as victims of a 'dire conspiracy of German and Russian jews'.

Bakunin's factionalism via the Alliance was aimed at an "invisible dictatorship" over the International itself as well as over the political and social revolution.


This is ridiculous, the International was collapsing on it's own.

I realize that part of this was true when I said that the English departed. But, as they say, out goes the chaff, and in comes the wheat.


The French section had been outlawed after the Paris Commune and it's members were either killed, exiled or emigrated before the police could catch them.

They could have operated like the RSDLP did later on.


The American sections were being infiltrated by middle-class spiritualists.

Please elaborate.


The factional squabbles between Proudhonists, Blanquists, Bakuninists and Communists were making it impossible to do anything.

That's why I suggested this Lassallean alternative in the first place. ;)

Maybe I'm using strawmen here to make a point, but do forgive me for bending the stick in the other direction.