intellectual leaders more than any other country. Also it is remarkable for its support on a large scale among the peasant class, who have organized even more thoroughly than the workmen in their trade unions. Before 1882, however, the anarchist ideas of the Russian Bakunin were more prevalent than the ideas of political Socialism, though both in 1882 and 1885 attempts were made with some slight success to organize workmen into a political party. But practically no progress had been made before 1889.

In England, during the eighties, the Fabian Society was formed, which still remains an influential group of intellectual Socialists, but without much direct influence on the workingmen or on parliament. At about the same time the Democratic Federation was formed under Socialist influence with a practical political program that was to be guided by such well-known labor leaders as John Burns and Tom Mann.

In 1886 the Socialist agitation gained tremendous headway, and Hyndman came into great prominence as leader. In November 1887 came the November uprising called "Bloody Sunday" in London.

As Hunter says: "A general awakening of the working class seemed to be taking place as a result of Socialist activity and 1889 (the year of the founding of the Second International) marks the beginning of a new epoch in English trade unionism marked by two important successful strikes."

The Belgian movement was very early, but seemed so hopeless for many years that it veered, like the Russian working class, toward anarchism. In 1885 a small beginning of a Belgian Labor Party was made at Brussels. It was a practical movment, weary of the old literary, scholastic organization, objecting at first even to the word "Socialist" though it soon adopted the Socialist program. Vandervelde has well said: "Belgian Socialism, at the conflux of the great European civilizations, partakes of the character of each of them." From the English it adopted selfhelp and free association; from the Germans political tactics and fundamental doctrines, which were for the first time expounded in the Communist Manifesto, and from the French it took its idealist tendencies, its integral conception of Socialism, considered as the confirmation of the revolutionary philosophy (Hunter, p. 135).

The Belgian Labor Party was many sided, with trade unions,

co-operatives with houses of the people, stores and meeting halls; insurance societies; everything in one harmonious organization with its political policy, its press and its propaganda. It was prepared, when 1889 came, to take a leading part in the Second International.

Practically very little progress before 1889 had been made in Scandinavia, in Russia, in Spain, in Austria-Hungary or even in Holland toward the formation of Socialist or labor organizations. There was, to be sure, in Denmark, a Social Democratic organization on a small scale, founded in 1878, and another in Sweden. In Spain a small Socialist Party was formed in 1888 and 1889 under Pablo Iglesias.

The situation, then, when the organization of the Second International was attempted, was brilliant only in spots, except that there were trained leaders in Marxism almost everywhere ready to organize the workers.

The Second International Congress of 1889 took place in Paris, with nearly 400 delegates representing twenty countries. After that, meetings followed thick and fast, promoting more and more the international character of the Socialist movement: at Brussels in 1891, at Zürich in 1893, at London in 1896, important for its discussion of anarchism; at Paris in 1900, and especially at Amsterdam in 1904, when an important resolution on a policy of International Socialist tactics was adopted. At the latter meeting the Internationalism was stressed when the representatives of Japan and of Russia, whose countries were then at war, clasped hands amid the thunderous applause of 450 delegates. The next meeting of the Second International was in 1907 at Stuttgart, the first meeting in Germany. There were about 1,000 delegates representing thirty nations. Then in 1910 a meeting at Copenhagen and one at Basel in 1912.

During these eight years between 1889 and 1907 tremendous progress had been made in the forming of political Socialist parties throughout Europe. Almost everywhere there were splits.

The permanent International Socialist Bureau, which had been established at Brussels, with the Belgian leader Emile Vandervelde as chairman, was transferred later to the Hague, where the Belgium Socialists were put in charge under Camille Huysmans. In Italy the splits were typified more clearly than elsewhere; the Right Wing Reformists led by Turati, the Left Wing Syndicalists led by Labriola, the Integralists of the center, led by Ferri. While

The

in Italy the labor unions still remained weak - weaker even than in France, they increased rapidly in strength throughout northern Europe, bringing the workingman more and more into the Socialist fold and giving him aggressive class consciousness. details will be given later. Through pressure of both kinds by strikes and by parliamentary methods-concessions were continually being secured. Solidarity of interest and action continued to spread the feeling of Internationalism.

Then came the Great War. What was its effect on Socialism? How did the doctrine of anti-militarism stand the inherent urge of national patriotism?

With few exceptions the most notable, beside that of the American Socialist Party, being that of the Socialist Party of Italy the Socialists put patriotism first.

This led to the temporary disruption of the Second International. It led, also, to the rise of a second, minor current of intransigeant Socialism which began an agitation against the regular Socialist International organization.

Before describing this movement and before giving the attitude of the Socialists in the various countries toward the war, it is necessary to give a picture of the condition of Socialism in each country, and its connection with the growing labor movement during the twenty-five years between the founding of the Second International in 1889 and the outbreak of the Great War in

1914.

The basis of the entire movement being the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels, of which a summary has just been given, its complete text is here inserted as an appendix to the chapter.

MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

By KARL MARX and FREDERICK ENGELS

A SPECTRE is haunting Europe the spectre of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre; Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where the Opposition. that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact.

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

I.

BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the early epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold graduation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the middle ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society, has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature; it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

From the serfs of the middle ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolized by close guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, stearn and machinery revolutionized industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle-class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the