Louise Michel on the Congress (1896)

[On the International Socialist Workers and Trade Union Congress, the fourth congress of the Second International]

From ‘Liberty’, London, August, 1896

Were I not an Anarchist of long standing, the Parliamentarian Congress in London would have made me one; many others feel likewise, not to mention those who were actually won over by it. The opening of the Congress, more exclusive than the Chambers of Badingue [Napoléon III] and little William [of Orange?], has precipitated events; the presidential bell has rung the knell of the dogma, the credo of which had to be recited before entering.

Having reached power, the Religion, the State, the new Papacy shut itself up in a fortress, happily too small to enclose the earth teeming with justice, liberty, and happiness. The new papacy had walled itself up.

It was conclusively proved at the Congress that the best, the most intelligent, the most devoted of men will be worse than those they seek to replace. No one will return to such a Congress. Parliamentarians will have only themselves to blame for it. Therefore it was not worthwhile to call their next senate in a German town in 1899. Where will Parliamentarians be then? Perhaps carried away in the general break up. But the idea will be grander, clearer than today; the idea they wished to nail to the stones of their fortress will have progressed.

The excommunication of Anarchists and anti-parliamentarians by the Queen’s Hall Infallibles will follow the fate of all excommunications.

The idea of Liberty glittered like flames round the world; they have stirred it up till it irradiates like an aurora.

It was perfectly logical to exclude, from a council in which they believe articles of creed without examination, associations for social studies, the members of which strive to obtain a clear conception of human tendencies at the end of our epoch. This incident must however be mentioned – that the Anarchists delegated by trade unions could not be excluded. And a grotesque thing might have happened. Felix Faure – who is a tanner, Constans – who is a nightman, Tirard – who is a clockmaker, and many others so situated, cold easily have obtained mandates from their trades, and, as they profess Parliamentarianism, the Congress gates – decked with the flag of trade unionism – would have been open to them.

Another comical thing is, that the police on this occasion were worse than the police of kings and emperors. As I had to wait at the door of the Congress for my entrance card, that I had omitted to change the day before, in order to reach the anti-parliamentarian meeting in time, the policeman who guarded the entrance began to push me from my place. With my accustomed obstinacy, I returned each time he pushed me away. Had I not a perfect right to be present at our excommunication? He ended by being sufficiently rough for me to have to remind him in my very best scullery English that it was not customary to act thus: I said, “You are not in Paris to be insolent like French police; you are in London.”

After this very correct observation he grew a little politer during the half an hour I was made to wait for my card, which was difficult to obtain, although Mrs. Aveling [Eleanor Marx] herself asked for it, because the “formality” of changing it had been forgotten on the previous evening.

At last I had the satisfaction of assisting at the sentence pronounced on us by Parliamentarians, and I should have been much amused had it not been painful to see old friends in their ranks, walled up by a stupid dogma, while the horizon is so vast.

Domela Nieuwenhuis was right when he said, “It is curious how history repeats itself – sometimes like a farce, sometimes like a tragedy. What sort of play will they act this time we wonder! The old Christians had the same struggle with heresy, and we can see how the heresy of today is the dogma of tomorrow.”

But Anarchy will never become a dogma, it would then no longer be Anarchy; it must follow freely, without god or master, the eternal call of progress.

Louise Michel

The Anarchist Congress

From ‘Liberty’, London, August, 1896

The Anarchists and others excommunicated from the Social Democratic assembly at Queen’s Hall, immediately made arrangements for a Congress, and engaged St Martin’s Hall for a meeting place. The Congress took place on Thursday, Friday and Saturday (July 30, 31, and August 1). This gathering, owing to the tolerance and general good feeling displayed, was a complete refutation of the prevalent idea that Anarchists cannot listen patiently to anything said by their opponents.

On the first day, when the agrarian question was under discussion, Hunter Watts spoke for some time without interruption notwithstanding the fact that a great number of delegates of all nationalities were strongly opposed to him and were anxious to speak.

On Thursday, several items on the Agenda were discussed under one heading, “General Strike, Trade Unionism, and General Tactics,” thus preventing any waste of time. All the little difficulties were met in good spirit and quickly overcome. Nor did the fact that Social Democrats, Independent Socialists or Opportunists took part in the discussion cause any hitch; the most diverse views were argued in the most forcible manner and were discussed on their merits without undue feeling or friction.

At this Congress were men and women whose lives have shown unparalleled devotion and suffering for their principle — Louise Michel, Domela Nieuwenhuis, Gustav Landauer, Errico Malatesta, Christ Cornelissen, Dr. Netlow, Tcherkowsky, Miss Roche, A. Hamon, Pouget, W. Wess, Stenzleit, Slovak, Tochatti, Quin, Banham, O’Malley, Paul, etc, besides Hunter Watts and another Social Democrat (who spoke from among the visitors at the back of the hall).

The Congress ended in a most satisfactory manner on Saturday morning.

* * *

The Anarchists gave a public reception to the delegates from the Continent at the Holborn Town Hall, on Tuesday, July 28th, which proved one of the most successful demonstrations of the sort ever held in London. The hall would not contain all who wished to be present, and an overflow meeting was consequently held in the hall of the Club and Institute Union.