No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Towards a Syndicalist International: The 1913 London Congress1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Although identified above all with the French Confédération Général du Travail prior to the First World War, revolutionary syndicalism had become an international movement by 1914, when various labour organizations in Europe, North and South America, and Australasia espoused its doctrines or the kindred doctrines of industrial unionism. The desire to establish durable international bonds between these revolutionary organizations had grown steadily, especially in Europe, where by 1912 organized syndicalist bodies existed in France, Holland, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Britain, Belgium, Spain and Italy. The congress held in London in the autumn of 1913 represented the first effort to create a vehicle of syndicalist internationalism. But the congress and the debate surrounding it demonstrated not only that syndicalists were not in accord on international tactics, nor on national tactics, but also that the deepest cleavage on the question of international strategy was that dividing the CGT from most syndicalist organizations in other countries.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1978
References
2 Quoted in Joh. Sassenbach, , Fünfundzwanzig Jahre internationale Gewerkschafts-bewegung (Amsterdam, 1926), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
3 De Arbeid, 27 November 1909.
4 Bowman in The Syndicalist and Amalgamation News (hereafter SAN), February; van Erkel in Bulletin International du Mouvement Syndicaliste, 16 February. This issue of the Bulletin reproduced much of the Dutch circular and the whole of the British invitation. The entire Dutch circular appeared in De Nederlandsche Zeeman, 1 March.
5 Die Einigkeit (Germany), 22 February; Wohlstand für Alle (Austria), 26 February; Syndikalisten (Sweden), 1 March; Solidaritet (Denmark), 1 March; L'Internazionale (Italy), 1 March; Tierra y Libertad (Spain), 24 February. In the United States both the Industrial Workers of the World and the Syndicalist League of North America welcomed the congress proposal. William Z. Foster's SLNA identified with the CGT, tended to favour craft unionism, and opposed the dual unionism of the IWW, with which Foster had broken in 1912. Foster promoted the congress, in which he hoped the SLNA would be represented. The Syndicalist (Chicago), 1 February. But the SLNA was short-lived and The Syndicalist itself disappeared in September 1913. The IWW's Industrial Worker (Spokane, Wash.) identified syndicalism above all with craft unionism and contrasted with it the IWW's industrialism: “The I.W.W. is not a syndicalist organization, though many regard it as such. It is an industrial union. […] In international affiliations the I.W.W. is more closely allied with the revolutionary syndicalists than any other body. […] still it is well to understand from the outset that the I.W.W. represents a higher type of revolutionary labor organization than that proposed by the syndicalists.” (9 January) Taking note of the congress proposal, the Industrial Worker on 3 April again remarked upon the superiority of the IWW's industrialism, but recommended the congress, adding: “let its most important work be the formation of a connecting link between the revolutionary syndicalists and industrialists of all countries.” The Industrial Worker dismissed the ISNTUC as a “farce”, but observed that the official position of the IWW on the London congress would have to await its annual convention in September.
6 Bulletin, 16 February. At the International Anarchist Congress in Amsterdam in 1907 the merits of revolutionary syndicalism had been discussed in a lively debate between the veteran Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta and the young French militant Pierre Monatte. The congress gave rise both to a short-lived anarchist bulletin and to the more durable Bulletin of Cornelissen, a Dutch militant also active in the French movement.
7 The general debate on the international question can be followed in XVIe Congrès National Corporatif (Xe de la C.G.T.) (Marseille, 1909), pp. 60–79, 153–66.Google Scholar Intimations of schism were however avoided on the congress floor. A letter of Alphonse Merrheim to Monatte, 7 October 1908, is illuminating in this respect. Merrheim was chiefly responsible for the resolution accepted at Marseille. In discussing the work of the committee charged with dealing with the international question, he wrote: “Niel, poussé à bout, a étè amené à déclarer que si nous ne voulions pas assister aux conferences, avant deux ans, il y aurait comme [en] Hollande deux confédérations, une adhérente au Bureau International, l'autre pas. Je lui ai demandé si c'était au collimateur. Il n'a répondu ni oui, ni non, et Guérard a protesté en disant qu'il n'irait pasjusque-là. Coupat s'est tu. Serait-ce la scission qui commencerait?” Quoted in Gras, Christian, Alfred Rosmer (1877–1964) et le mouvement révolutionnaire international (Paris, 1971), p. 85.Google Scholar
8 Léon Robert, a participant in the Marseille debates, criticized the decision made there and called for a change in La Voix du Peuple, 26 September – 3 October 1909. Tra-vailleur du Bâtiment pondered the creation of a separate International grouping revolutionary unionists in May 1909. See also Les Temps Nouveaux, 23 July 1910. The Dutch broached the same subject in De Arbeid, 27 November 1909. The French sought to dissuade them. In La Vie Ouvrière, 20 12 1909, p. 336Google Scholar, Monatte argued unenthusiastically that the American Federation of Labor, which had just entered the ISNTUC, could induce the Germans to transform the latter into a genuine workers' International. But two years later the CGT delegates supported a bid of the IWW to unseat the AFL in the ISNTUC. At the 1911 Budapest conference, William Foster, the IWW delegate, argued that the AFL was a collaborationist organization and unfit to prosecute the class struggle. Only the French supported the IWW in the conference, which decided to retain the AFL and bar the IWW. Brissenden, Paul, The IWW: A Study in American Syndicalism (New York, 1957), pp. 273–75.Google Scholar
9 The crisis of the CGT and the divisions within it are discussed in DeLucia, Michael S., “The Remaking of French Syndicalism, 1911–1918: The Growth of the Reformist Philosophy” (Ph.D. dissertation, Brown University, 1971).Google Scholar
10 Thus A. Luquet of the Fédération des Coiffeurs de France argued that the international endeavours of the foreign syndicalists were not to be welcomed because their success would lead to opposition to the ISNTUC, which in turn would lead to a serious rupture within the ranks of the organized workers of France. L'Humanité, 4 March.
11 La Vie Ouvrière (hereafter VO), 20 February, p. 254.
12 Die Einigkeit, 5 April.
13 Cornelissen in Bulletin, 9 March; De Ambris and Wolter (mistakenly called Walter) in VO, 5 April, pp. 404–06; Monatte ibid., 20 March, pp. 377–78.
14 Bowman in SAN, March-April; Mann in VO, 5 April, pp. 434–35.
15 Alfred Rosmer had attended the London ISEL conference on behalf of La Bataille Syndicaliste and as a fraternal delegate of the CGT. He and Léon Jouhaux had also been present at the Manchester conference. SAN, December 1912. The proposal that the ISEL organize an international congress was first endorsed at both conferences. At that time Jouhaux and Rosmer apparently told Mann and Bowman that neither the CGT nor its member federations could be represented at such a congress. VO, 5 September, p. 267.
16 Bulletin, 8 December 1912.
17 Ibid., 9 March.
18 Ibid., 6 April.
19 VO, 5 April, pp. 406–07.
20 Die Einigkeit, 5 April; SAN, March-April.
21 Bulletin, 6 April.
22 Ibid., 15 June.
23 Nettlau, Max, Unpublished Manuscript, 1895–1914, III B, p. 605, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
24 W. Tcherkesov, the Russian anarchist exile living in London, offered a thumbnail sketch of Bowman during this period: “Bowman, half-English, half-French, quite an ‘esprit boulevardier’, a despotic man, wanted the entire movement for himself and kept in his hands. He quarreled with the young syndicalists, scorned them, and stood alone.” From a conversation with Nettlau, ibid. The rift amongst the British syndicalists eventually led to a schism, with Bowman retaining control of an increasingly sectarian and strident rump ISEL, now devoted to dual unionism, and Mann becoming identified with the new League for Industrial Democracy. The ideological differences between the later ISEL and the League are discussed in Holton, Bob, British Syndicalism 1900–1914: Myths and Realities (London, 1976), pp. 139–47.Google Scholar
25 Cornelissen, Jensen and Bowman in Bulletin, 15 June, 27 July and 3 August, respectively.
26 La Bataille Syndicaliste, 30 August. Two weeks before Jouhaux's article appeared, Solidarity, an IWW weekly published in Cleveland, Ohio, published an article entitled “What Game is Jouhaux Playing?”, in which André Tridon suggested that the French government had left Jouhaux undisturbed when it had arrested other CGT officials in relation to antimilitarist demonstrations because of Jouhaux's opposition to the London congress. Tridon's article soon came to the outraged attention of VO (20 September, pp. 331–32).
27 Bulletin, 7 September.
28 VO, 5 September, p. 263.
29 Ibid., pp. 264–65.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., 5 April, p. 407.
32 Ibid., 5 September, pp. 266–67.
33 Ibid., 20 September, p. 370.
34 Ibid., 5 September, pp. 269–70.
35 Ibid., pp. 267–68, 273.
36 Bulletin, 21 September.
37 VO, 20 September, pp. 367–70.
38 Cornelissen, Christiaan, “Strijd, lief en leed in de Oude Socialistische Beweging en de Vakorganisaties: Persoonlijke herinneringen”, p. 442Google Scholar, Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis.
39 According to Tcherkesov. Nettlau, ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Cornelissen, , “Strijd, lief en leed”, pp. 442–43.Google Scholar
42 Der Pionier, 15 October. In the same article, Karl Roche, one of the German delegates, wrote that Cornelissen had gone to London “und machte dem Genossen Bowman Feuer unter die Sohlen. Das war”, Roche added, “ein schweres Werk.”
43 The best list of delegates and organizations represented, though it is incomplete, is that published in Die Einigkeit, 11 October. An earlier and slightly different “proof copy” of the delegates' list survives in the Jack Tanner Papers, Box 3, Syndicalism 1912–1920, Nuffield College, Oxford. The British delegation: Jack Tanner and Albert Crook, Hammersmith Engineers; A. Butcher, Bermondsey branch of the National Union of Railwaymen; E. Howell, Bristol Operative Bricklayers; A. Jones, Forest Gate Shop Assistants; Frank Lemaire, London Society of Compositors; F. Gamier, London Cooks; J. V. Wills and S. Edwards, the Bermondsey and Leicester Trades Councils, respectively.
44 The Austrian Free Trade Unions Association had designated Jaroslaw Schebesta to represent them, but was unable to raise the funds to finance his trip from Vienna. Schebesta sent an explanation of his inability to attend along with a report on the Austrian situation to the congress, which was published in Wohlstand fülr Alle, 8 October. Financial difficulties may also have kept A. Wroblewski of the Polish Revolutionary Trade Union Group, which submitted an item concerning syndicalist morality to the agenda, from the congress.
45 A bitterly contested struggle between centralizers and decentralizers completely dominated the IWW (cf. note 5) conference when it met from 15 to 29 September, and no decision was taken on IWW representation in London. Swasey therefore attended the London congress in an unofficial capacity.
46 An official report of the congress was never prepared and no documents, except the tentative delegates' list and the provisional agenda in the Tanner Papers, appear to have survived. Consequently, reports and/or discussions published by participants in the congress must be relied upon. Those I have been able to locate are listed here. The congress was reported by a number of its official delegates in various journals: in Argentina by Bernardo in La Protesta (29 October, 5–8 November); in Spain by Negre in Solidaridad Obrera (9 and 16 October; but see also 20 November); in Italy by De Ambris in L'Internazionale (11 October); in France by Duque in Les Temps Nouveaux (18 October); in Holland by Lansink Jr and van Erkel in De Arbeid (4, 8, 11 and 15 October) and by Markmann in De Nederlandsche Zeeman (1 and 15 December); in Germany in Die Einigkeit (11 and 18 October) and in Der Pionier (15 October) by Roche; in Sweden in Syndikalisten (11 and 18 October, Julnummer (Christmas issue); but see also 8 November); in Denmark in Solidaritet (11 and 18 October; but see also 25 October), and in Norway in Direkte Aktion (11 and 25 October) by Jensen; and in Britain by Bowman in SAN (December). The congress was also reported or commented upon by other participants or observers; in Spain by Tarrida del Marmol in Tierra y Libertad (15 October); and in France by Tcherkesov in Les Temps Nouveaux (18 October), by Rosmer in VO (20 October, pp. 449–60), and by Cornelissen (C. Rupert) in La Bataille Syndicaliste (27 and 30 September, 1, 3 and 5 October); and by the latter in the Bulletin (12 October; but see also 19 October and 2 November). There were other reports by interested but non-participating groups; for example, the Austrian Wohlstand für Alle (29 October). Finally there is the British press in general, and though all the major newspapers reported the congress, their coverage is neither particularly informative nor reliable. The fullest coverage in Britain was given by the radical Daily Herald (29–30 September, 1–3 October), but even this is scanty and sometimes erroneous.
47 On the mandate issue in general, see especially Solidaridad Obrera, 16 October; but also Syndikalisten, 11 October, and La Protesta, 29 October.
48 The ISEL delegates: Evelyn Lilyan, secretary of its London branch; Gaylord Wilshire, editor of the militant Wilshire's Magazine; and Roberts, Charles, a journalist. Vallina briefly recalled the congress in Mis Memorias (Caracas, 1968), p. 133.Google Scholar Vallina remembered the closing session as having been held at the Jewish Anarchist Club, in which Rudolf Rocker was active, but this session was more likely an informal gathering. The congress was not covered by the anarchist paper Freedom, however, though the October issue reproduced the declaration of principles endorsed there. The congress is also recalled in Jensen's “Memoarfragment” (unpaginated), Jensen Arkiv, Arbetarrörelsens Arkiv, Stockholm.
49 The figure of 220,000 is Rosmer's estimate, VO, 20 October, p. 453. Rosmer gave no indication of how he arrived at this figure, but of European organizations in 1913 the USI had around 100,000 members, the NAS around 10,000, the FVDG less than 9,000, the SAC 3,700, the Belgian organization represented by Demoulin nearly 1,000, the Danish Fagsoppositionens Sammenslutning 500–600. It is difficult to say how many workers the Spanish represented, but Negre's claim to represent 60,000 (De Arbeid, 15 October) is certainly too optimistic.
50 The German delegation, all of the FVDG: Karl Roche, Karl Windhoff and its executive officer, Fritz Kater. The Dutch delegation, all of the NAS: Thomas Markmann, Seamen's Union; Bernard Lansink Sr, textile workers; Bernard Lansink Jr and van Erkel, building-trades workers; C. J. Wesseling, municipal workers; and A. van der Hagen and A. van den Berg, cigar-makers and tobacco workers.
51 The financial question revolved around who was responsible for re-imbursing the Dutch the £20 advanced to Bowman for the preparation of the congress. A committee assigned to review the matter reported in closed session that Bowman had submitted no receipts for expenses and that no conclusion could be reached concerning the disposition of the deficit. No decision was made in this tumultuous session, though the British delegation entered a vigorous protest against Bowman. On the final day of the congress, the representatives of the London branch of the ISEL, aware of the claims for reimbursement lodged by the Dutch, disclaimed all responsibility for its organization. Bernardo observed in La Protesta, 6 November, that the closed session had made evident “the very bad conduct of Bowman”. Die Einigkeit, 18 October, was marginally more charitable: “But it is here expressly emphasized that material dishonesty may not be credited to Bowman. In financial matters people like Bowman are harmlessly cut off from the world. They spend money so long as there is some, and when it is gone they trust in providence and let the creditors do as they please.” Bowman himself later complained that the organizers had been short of funds and observed that “had the I.S.E.L. stopped because of money considerations the Congress could not have been held at all”. SAN, December. But he neglected to add that he himself had proposed its cancellation, or at least its postponement; nor did he mention the £20 advance from the Dutch.
52 Rosmer to Monatte, mercredi matin (1 October), Monatte Archives, Institut français d'Histoire sociale, Paris.
53 The Italian delegation: De Ambris, USI; Corio, Parma Trades Council; and Edmondo Rossoni, Bologna Trades Council and the Syndicalist Union of Milan. The Spanish delegation, in addition to Negre, included J. Suarez Duque, mandated by thirteen unions of various type of Coruña, and José Rodriguez Romero, who represented three unions of agricultural workers and bootmakers of Alayor and Mahon as well as an Alayor women's union. Romero delivered a well-received discourse acclaiming the equal rights of women at the congress. A fourth French delegate, Louis Perrin, representing the Vichy Bourse du Travail, arrived late for the congress. He attended its sessions only irregularly and was not issued a congress card.
54 Among other things, Bowman accused Cornelissen of distorting translations and of trying to manipulate the congress. The Dutch and German delegations on the one hand and the Italians and some of the French on the other proved temperamentally indisposed towards one another. Disparate conditions of economic development and labour organization amongst the countries represented may have played a role. Although it was the largest organization represented, the Dutch and the Germans apparently did not take the USI represented by De Ambris, for example, very seriously; they treated it, according to Rosmer, letter to Monatte, jeudi soir (2 October), Monatte Archives, as a “quantité négligeable”. The Daily Herald, 1 October, also noted the Bowman-Cornelissen split which corresponded broadly to national differences, and attributed the slow progress of the congress to the “strong individualism of the delegates”. Rossoni, as “coquet comme plusieurs femmes”, was given to castigating the Germans and the Dutch. They in turn took him for a fool, and Rosmer opined that they were not far wrong. De Ambris developed a “veritable haine” for Kater, Rosmer to Monatte, 1 October. Rossoni, Michelet and other Latin delegates habitually interrupted-the proceedings. At one point an exasperated Windhoff exclaimed: “Les Français, les Espagnols et les Italiens parlent tout le temps […]. Les Allemands et les Hollandais sont les seuls qui discutent convenablement”, VO, 20 October, p. 451. The provocation was not wholly one-sided. The Daily Herald, ibid., observed that Karl Roche perambulated the congress floor and interjected comments which had the result of “often raising the ire of his French comrades”. The Spanish delegation, for the most part, avoided being drawn into the personal disputes, and sought at times to soothe their colleagues and call attention back to the more serious work of the congress. And no one “ne fut plus surpris ni attristé par cet antagonisme que Cornelissen”, VO, ibid. Though these divisions were clearly felt in the congress, they can be unduly emphasized, and Rosmer's claim (ibid., pp. 450–51) that from the beginning two inalterable groups came into being which formed opposing blocs on all issues of the congress is a gross exaggeration. Divisions within the congress are also discussed in Nettlau, ibid.
55 Schapiro was not only a veteran of the 1907 Amsterdam International Anarchist Congress, like Cornelissen, but was also a member of the International Bureau which the congress had appointed.
56 La Bataille Syndicaliste, 1 October.
57 The fullest accounts of the presidency dispute are to be found in Solidaridad Obrera, 16 October; Syndikalisten, 18 October; and VO, 20 October, pp. 453–55. The quotes are from VO.
58 Although in France the Charte d'Amiens guaranteed individual members of the CGT complete liberty to engage in political action, union officials were discouraged from doing so. Nonetheless, the incongruous situation arose wherein members of the CGT's Confederal Committee actually sat as socialists in the Chamber of Deputies. Only in 1911 were the CGT statutesaltered to prevent the candidature of officials.
59 VO, 20 October, p. 455. The Dutch were not alone in threatening to leave the congress. On several occasions, especially when personal disputes came to the fore, various small groups of delegates threatened to withdraw.
60 The fullest account of the reports is that given in De Arbeid, 4, 8 and 11 October.
61 Manchester Guardian, 1 October.
62 De Arbeid, 11 October. Rosmer, who certainly did not share Knockaert's views, granted that he had been “magnifique” in his speech and noted that the Germans were delighted with it. “Knockaert est leur homme.” Letter to Monatte. 2 October. According to Les Temps Nouveaux, 18 October, the organization in-Lille represented by Knockaert had been expelled for its revolutionary tendency from the national textile federation, a markedly reformist body within the CGT.
63 Daily Herald, 2 October; see also Syndikalisten, 18 October.
64 De Arbeid, 8 October.
65 Wesseling, ibid.; Bernardo in La Protesta, 5 November.
66 On Tcherkesov's role, Nettlau, op. cit., pp. 605–06.
67 Syndikalisten, 18 October.
68 SAN, December. Rosmer noted that the declaration was the work of a French delegate, VO, 20 October, p. 456. But while Couture, a member of the resolution committee, may have put the finishing touches to the document, it does not deviate greatly from the original draft submitted by the Dutch and reproduced in De Arbeid, 3 September. Tanner opened the final day of congress by emphasizing that the declaration specifically precluded political action of any kind, contrary to a misconception in the London press, Morning Advertiser, 3 October. His correction was obviously elicited by the Daily Chronicle's confused article of 2 October, which claimed that the declaration “was worthy of note because it admitted the trade union view of the importance of political action” (which prompted Jensen to quip: “Political-parliamentary syndicalism! That is the latest sensational news!” Syndikalisten, 18 October).
69 “Provisional Agenda”, Tanner Papers.
70 The best sources on the discussion of the question of international organization are those found in De Arbeid, 15 October; Les Temps Nouveaux (Duque), 18 October; Syndikalisten, 18 October; and La Protesta, 7 November.
71 La Bataille Syndicaliste, 5 October; La Protesta, 7 November. Duque thought very little of this expectation of Michelet and Couture: “C'est le même argument que nous presentent les social-démocrates quand ils parlent de s'approprier l'Etat, sans jamais compter que, malgré leur majorité, ils seraient forcés de faire la révolution.” Les Temps Nouveaux, 18 October. The case of Couture illustrates the effect the crisis in the CGT had upon the international views of some of its radicals. In May 1909 in Travailleur du Bâilment Couture proposed, in opposition to CGT's policy, the creation of an independent International for revolutionary unions. In 1913 he argued against the creation of such an International because it would jeopardize the unity of the French organization.
72 VO, 20 October, p. 449.
73 La Protesta, 7 November.
74 Syndikalisten, 18 October.
75 De Ambris had originally intended to propose London as the seat of the Bureau until his experience in the congress revealed to him the deep divisions amongst the British syndicalists. But his proposal to entrust the Bureau to Michelet's Fédération in Paris amazed Rosmer. Letter to Monatte, 2 October.
76 SAN, December. Bowman defended De Ambris's proposal here, but falsely added that the majority of delegates preferred Paris.
77 VO, 20 October, p. 457.
78 De Ambris had been unhappy with the voting procedures from the beginning. Later in the day Rosmer encountered De Ambris. who following his withdrawal from the congress had had a dinner “avec un fiasque pour lui tout seul. II est tres gai. […] Mais il est enragé contre Cornelissen et contre Kater! II souhaite leur mort pour la paix du monde et le progrès du syndicalisme.” Letter to Monatte, 2 October.
79 The resolution is reproduced in full in Die Einigkeit, 11 October.
80 Der Pionier, 15 October.
81 Manchester Guardian, 3 October; see also the Morning Post, the Daily Chronicle and the Daily Herald, all 3 October. LKA Protesta, 8 November, presents the glowing but not untypical response of a congress delegate (Bernardo).
82 Thus the conservative Morning Post, 3 October, asserted that because of the differences and disruptions of the proceedings “little light has been thrown on the ideas for which the Syndicalists stand”. The somewhat more perceptive New Statesman, 4 October, noted that the position of the congress “with regard to Parliamentarism, the organization of Trade Unions and the value of direct action was quite clearly and definitely expressed”.
83 Justice, 11 October.
84 Correspondenzblatt der Generalkommission der Gewerkschaften Deutschlands, 25 October, p. 658.
85 Quoted in VO, 20 October, p. 460, from L'Internazionale, 11 September.
86 Rosmer to Monatte, 2 October.
87 20 October, pp. 449, 456, 458–59. Note that in its Zurich conference in September 1913 the ISNTUC changed its name to the International Federation of Trade Unions. G. Dumoulin attended the conference on behalf of the CGT. In reporting the conference, Dumoulin did not mention the London congress, but alluded to it, as well as to the domestic pressures which kept the CGT in the IFTU: “Désespérer, aller ailleurs, compromettre notre unité nationale parce que le Secrétariat de Berlin est réformiste! Ce serait gravement nous tromper, ce serait faire fausse route et laisser sans contrepoids les idées qui ne sont pas les nôtres. Dans cette Internationale, notre syndicalisme révo-lutionnaire ne peut pas se diminuer, il ne peut que pénétrer chez les autres. […] tout en constatant que le Secrétariat international ne correspond pas à nos idées, je suis revenu de la Suisse avec cette forte impression que notre C.G.T. y était à sa place”. La Voix du Peuple, 5–12 October.
88 Syndikalisten, Julnummer.
89 Bulletin, 12 October and 2 November.
90 18 October.
91 Negre in Solidaridad Obrera, 9 October; Bowman in SAN, December; Sjöström in Syndikalisten, 8 November.
92 Bernardo in La Protesta. 5 November; Negre in Solidaridad Obrera, 16 October; Duque in Les Temps Nouveaux, 18 October; Jensen in Syndikalisten, 18 October.
93 Jensen in Syndikalisten, 18 October; Negre in Solidaridad Obrera, 9 and 16 October; the FVDG in Die Einigkeit, 18 October.
94 La Protesta, 8 November.
95 Bulletin, 16 November.
96 Cornelissen, , “Strijd, lief en leed”, p. 439.Google Scholar
97 Strictly speaking, there were eighteen issues. The eighteenth, dated 1 January 1915, attributed the disappearance of the Bulletin to wartime conditions.
98 An exception is Christian Gras, who discusses the congress in his Alfred Rosmer, op. cit., pp. 86–97. But Gras is concerned above all with Rosmer's career and is content to accept Rosmer's account of the course and significance of the assembly.
You have
Access