Dubois, Marx and Weber on caste and democracy, part 1

      Comparing Weber and Marx on racism and its constriction of radical democratic movements is deepened by WEB Dubois’ comments on caste.  Lawrence Schaff’s 2012 book on Max Weber in America features chapter 6 on “The Color Line.”  The phrase is from the beginning of the brilliant chapter two on the Freedman’s Bureau and the defeat of Reconstruction in Dubois’s Souls of Black Folk (1903; Dover Publications, 1994); the idea of blacks as a caste Dubois first used at the end: 

     “The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line, the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Africa and Asia, America and the island of the sea.” (p. 9)

      “For this much all men know; despite compromise, war and struggle, the Negro is not free.  In the backwoods of the Gulf States, for miles and miles, he may not leave the plantation of his birth; in well-nigh the whole rural South, black farmers are peons.. bound by law and custom to an economic slavery from which the only escape is death or the penitentiary.  In the most cultivated sections and cities of the South, the Negros are a segregated servile caste with restricted rights and privileges.  Before the courts, they stand on a different and peculiar basis. Taxation without representation is the rule of their political life.” (p. 24)


        Dubois also wrote “The Negro Question in the United States” – 1906 – at Weber’s request for his Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik (it is available online in German, not in English, here) – part of a common project to understand the special oppression of black farmworkers/sharceroppers in the segregated South as well as an analysis of prison labor for Northern capitalists like US Steel.


      Dubois argued that caste, an idea drawn from the poisonous sanctification of divide and rule in Hindu India involving ritual shunning, plays a central role in the domination of blacks.  This creative contribution to Weber’s then in process of forming notion of status – divisions of honor – is vivid, and one that limits or shapes, as Weber’s idea of status does, the way class conflict from below and its democratic potentials occurs. 

      Marx was profoundly interested in the American Civil War – thought it, along with the reform of serfdom in Russia,  the most important international events of the early to mid-1860s.  The theme of a new working class movement arising out of the death of slavery is central both in his work in the International Workingmen’s Association and to his writing in Capital.  He even looked to Lincoln  for a hope that a new working class movement would shape post-Civil War American politics peacefully – see below.  Just after the Paris Commune, he also had the hope – though perhaps an illusion from his own point of view – that the American state structure could change peacefully into socialism because it was not so elaborate as a professional army and bloated officialdom as the “parasite state”  of Louis Napoleon. 


       Marx perhaps underestimated the role of local police forces. Chicago’s was formed to suppress immigrant workers central to 19th century American capitalist development, the Haymarket police attack and framing and hanging of four of the speakers are a central example.  See the last piece by Sam Mitrani here and consider also the emergence of Pinkertons (private capitalist police forces).  But Marx’s hope for nonviolent transition in the American setting is, nonetheless, heartening and suggestive.  Still, the revival of racism in the American Soutb, with its quasi-ritualistic/religious inflection. that a black must step off the sidewalk as a white man passed… – was, as Dubois underlines, reminiscent of the caste system.   Thus, a Brahman from Travancore even cleansed himself and his garden after meeting Gandhi, from the trader class, there – see Joseph Lelyveld, Great Soul.  That the Brahmans and other racists are the ones who are spiritually unclean is named  by Mao in his “Investigation into the Peasant Movement in Hunan” (1926).  As a rich peasant’s son, he recalled, he had thought poor peasants “dirty,” but after being in contact with them, now he saw that he himself had been….

     Dubois’s notion of caste is at the least a clarification of Marx in the light of subsequent historical experience in the South.  Dubois also speaks to Weber’s concerns about America and they had a common intellectual project, which included Weber publishing Dubois in his journal.  So the Civil War and post-Civil War American experience is a test caste (I have previously written of this aspect of Marx’s argument in “Journey from the South” here, here and here).
     Marx centrally recognizes racism or what Weber calls status as crucial to upholding the status quo; it is what organizing in the interests of the most oppressed, internationalism, is meant to combat. 


      For instance, Marx names the domination of Irish Catholic immigrants in England and their divisions from (fatheaded) English workers who looked down on them, mirroring the elite which looked down on English workers. in an April 9, 1870 letter to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt. These two German emigres to St. Louis had participated with Marx in the German Revolution of 1848 (Marx himself thought of emigrating to Texas – see Robin Blackburn,  An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln, introduction); Marx also corresponded with his friend and comrade Joseph Weydemeyer who became an officer for the North in the Civil War.  As Marx put it:
     “And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the ‘poor whites’ to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.

          This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.”


       Thus far, Marx, Weber and Dubois have a common, initial position, one which Dubois thinking about caste deepens, though of course Marx was vastly more critical of the oppression of poor people  than Weber.  Still, a crucial disagreement between Marx and Weber is that class conflict can sometimes overcome status or caste divisions.  From the standpoint of democratic theory and decency, one might hope that Marx is right about this, i.e. if status divisions are overpowering, then nationalisms, bigotries, genocides and fascisms will, very likely, always win.  So one should be careful before one insists, as many social scientists have, that Weber’s notion of status should be adopted without question, and provides “an antidote” to Marx..  For if Weber is right, civil rights and genuine democracy have little hope, anywhere…
      These are large moral – “evaluative” – stakes and a supposedly “value free” avoidance of them is one of the worst errors of America social “science.”

       In chapter 10 – “Democracy and Status” – of my Democratic Individuality, I note that some democratic struggles from below historically in the United States fit with Marx’s argument that such divisions can be overcome and undercut Weber’s.  “Labor cannot be free in the white skin where in the black it is branded,”  Marx pointed out at the end of chapter 10 of Capital, and with the “death of slavery” in the Civil War, a great movement arose for an 8 hour day, beginning with the Baltimore Congress of Labor in 1866 and a resolution of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association, written by Marx, in that same year.  The movement was international in its impact in many ways, and furthered by immigrants who often had contact with the International Workingmen’s Assocation like Meyer, Vogt and Weydemeyer.  


      Marx’s aim in Capital was to instigate that struggle (see my “The Storming of Heaven: Capital and Marx’s Politics” in J. Roland Pennock, ed, Marxism Today, Nomos, 1984). This became a huge movement culminating once again, in the demonstration in Haymarket in Chicago in 1886 in which an undercover cop blew off a bomb, killing a policeman – and the state then sentenced to hang  8 immigrant radicals, mainly anarchists, who spoke at the march.   This struggle gave rise globally to the formation of Social Democratic parties in Europe, America and Chile, the Second International in 1890 (see Engels’ new Preface to the Communist Manifesto of 1890).


    So the fight for abolition in the American Civil War had vast, unexpected, positive, international ramifications for working people of the sort Marx envisioned in Capital. 

      In addition, in Radical Protest and Social Structure: the Southern Farmers Alliance and Cotton Tenacy, Michael Schwartz has analyzed the 1890s movement which fused hundreds of thousands of black and white sharecroppers and led to the anti-racism of the early Populist Party. See here.  Poor whites in  Kentucky and Tennessee fought for the Union in the Civil War.  The Southern tenant farmers union in the CIO – see Ted Rosengarten’s oral history of Nate Shaw’s experience, All God’s Dangers here – and the CIO itself, are among the others.  


      This is the theme and final speech of Martin Luther King in Montgomery in Ava Duvernay’s wonderful film ‘Selma” (see here).  And it is also a theme of my writing about black and white sailors, “impressed’ into the Navy by the British and learning from 20 slave revolts in the Caribbean.  They brought the news to London (J. Philmore, Two Dialogues Concerning the Man-Trade) and Boston (James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonists Asserted and Proved, in which “Every man is free, black as well as white”) in the early 1760s.  Abolitionist views were widespread in the revolutionary crowds not only in Boston, New York and Philadelphia, but even in Charlestown – during the American Revolution as my Black Patriots and Loyalists: Fighting for Emancipation in the War of Independence, ch. 2, emphasizes.   

        This international revolt from below produced gradual emancipation throughout the North, and thus, the possibility of a Union side in an anti-genocidal Civil War in the South. This illustration about the revolt against slavery and its consequences for freedom in North America, was not known to Marx, but is also pretty striking evidence for his theory.

     There is thus much surprising evidence for Marx’s view, as opposed to Weber’s.  The latter’s is by implication (he does not discuss the possibility): status divisions nearly always override class.  Weber did not imagine the potentials for multiracial unity in America even though the history of the previous fifty years, in the South, had been full of examples, and Dubois had written (Weber read Souls of Black Folks) or would shortly write about some of them. 

      Further, a large anti-slavery movement in England and during the French Revolution for 70 years meant that English textile workers held demonstrations which  blocked English intervention in the Civil War on the side of the South, a stirring act of internationalism praised by Marx in his letter to Lincoln below and occluded by Weber’s social theory.


     Nonetheless, many American whites did support slavery, segregation and today, the “New Jim Crow” (Michelle Alexander), and Weber’s argument, as long as it is not taken as a necessity as American social science often does, casts important light on this, as Marx might also affirm.   That the divisions, say, between English and Irish workers exist, after all, is what it means to organize to overcome them, i.e. internationalism….  
      As I argue in Democratic Individuality, ch. 10 “Democracy and Status,” the Weberian views dominant in Seymour Martin Lipset and American sociology/political science have the bizarre effect of  expecting that Martin Luther King cannot have led a successful civil rights movement in the United States (or would not have led a serious poor people’s s movement  if he had not been assassinated in Memphis, April 4, 1968) because white majority “status” would block enforcement of civil rights for blacks, chicanos, indigenous people and the like.  If American social “science” had been right, there would only be the repeated scene from “Selma” where the Oprah Winfrey character is denied the right to vote….  
    Given this view, it is unsurprising, for example, that Michael Walzer and Tom Pettigrew who actively supported the civil rights movement in the South were an exception on the social sciences faculty at Harvard in the early 1960s, and that SNCC emerged, under the impact of a few faculty like Jim Lawson and Howard Zinn, in the South as a primarily student movement…
   The standard social “science” view of status is, thus, morally speaking, anti-democratic and  frightening, and, further, one that flies in the face of powerful evidence.  To purport “value-freedom” in adopting, in this context, so pointedly reactionary and racist a view is both false and foolish.
     In addition, that people who claim otherwise to have affection for a decent democracy not even to see that the civil rights movement alone raises startling questions about the anti-Marxian, social “science” argument on status they routinely disseminate is remarkable.  Many are not even aware of a democratic and Marxian alternative that poor folks often have common interests across status lines and that genuine democracy must be driven from below  by the unity of the oppressed, black and white. 

     Democratic Individuality was published at Cambridge in 1990; it is again strange – shows the continuing power of an enforced Cold War consensus from above – that a radical political philosopher has to  point out this fundamental issue about how American sociology/political science discuss race and status, to underline that a well-stated liberal  view must endorse this feature of a Marxian view (further, as I argue in Democratic Indvidiuality, it is bizarre for political scientists, in the name of “value-freedom.” to leave the entire moral territory of liberalism or decent conservatism to radicals) and that there has been, so far, little taking up of the challenge or reformulation in “mainstream” literature.  I should note again, powerful dissidents in sociology like Michael Schwartz and, broadly speaking, the study of social movements is often motivated by a spirit of a common good and is inflected with greater insight. 

    Still, the era of the election of Obama, of challenging the New Jim Crow, the fierce emergence of Black Lives Matter! – see here – and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper’s apology for the Sand Creek Massacre – see here –  all suggest, however, that the founding amnesias and anti-democracy of much social science and history are likely to change.
     Given more historical investigation and developments in the anti-colonial and anti-racist movement, Dubois himself moved over time toward  Marx (see among his writings Black Reconstruction  in  which he read the debates in Southern Reconstruction legislatures which furthered education for poor blacks and whites; no decent book on Reconstruction was published in academia until Eric Foner’s Reconstruction (1988  – some 50 years later…); he became a Communist at the end of his life…As his John Brown, deepening the judgments of Frederick Douglass shows (1909), he was also a much more impassioned, fierce and lyrical writer than Weber.  Yet Weber admired and  learned much from Dubois.

      Scaff rightly emphasizes DuBois’ concept of caste at pp. 105-08;  for the striking correspondence of B.R.. Ambedkar, the great leader of the dalits (outcastes) in India, who studied at Columbia, near Harlem, and Dubois, see below 
     The solidarity revealed in the letters and common movements – Sudarshan Kapur, Raising up a Prophet traces about black interest in and solidariy with Gandhi from 1919 on – is another central meaning of Marx’s leading public idea: internationalism (democracy across borders from below and often in opposition to the policies on one’s state).

     Dubois’ book onJohm Brown is here.
       How much there is to be reconsidered as well as to achieve at least acknowledgment and perhaps  restorative justice over time about is visible in the recent New York Times’editorial on a new report on the lynching of 4,000 named individuals in the South.  

        Hangings were genocidal public spectacles to which the lynchers brought their children as if on a picnic… 

         This was the Southern ‘education” – the first lynchings were in 1877, the year after the defeat of Reconstruction…, as was the mutilation of the genitals of men and women at Sand Creek in late 1864, and  parading around Denver with them by the Colorado Third Regiment.  
        The editorial emphasizes that the great migration from the South to the urban North was partially driven by these lynchings.  Bryan Sinclair and  the Equal Justice Initiative are set to abate this Historic Amnesia by making memorials at the many sites of these lynchings,  There is a founding amnesia, as I have emphasized, over Presidential slave-owning in the early Republic and this is a further unfolding of that amnesia; a festering criminality is what all the blame the victim rhetoric, including in academia, conceals…

The Opinion Pages | EDITORIAL
Lynching as Racial Terrorism

A crowd at a lynching in Excelsior Springs, Missouri, in 1925. CreditBettmann/Corbis
It is important to remember that the hangings, burnings and dismemberments of black American men, women and children that were relatively common in this country between the Civil War and World War II were often public events. They were sometimes advertised in newspapers and drew 
hundreds and even thousands of white spectators, including elected officials and leading citizens
who were so swept up in the carnivals of death that they posed with their children 
for keepsake photographs within arm’s length of mutilated black corpses.

These episodes of horrific, communitywide violence have been erased from civic memory in lynching-belt states like Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Florida and Mississippi. But that will change if Bryan Stevenson, a civil rights attorney, succeeds in his mission to build markers and memorials at lynching sites throughout the South as a way of forcing communities and the country to confront an era of racial terror directly and recognize the role that it played in shaping the current racial landscape.
Mr. Stevenson’s organizationthe Equal Justice Initiative, took a step in that direction on Tuesday when it released a report that chronicles nearly 4,000 lynchings of black people in 12 Southern states from 1877 to 1950. The report focuses on what it describes as “racial terror lynchings,” which were used to enforce Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. Victims in these cases were often murdered without being accused of actual crimes but for minor social transgressions that included talking back to whites or insisting on fairness and basic rights.
The report is the result of five years of hard work. Researchers reviewed local newspapers, historical archives and court records; interviewed local historians, survivors and victims’ descendants; and scrutinized contemporaneously published articles in African-American newspapers, which took a closer interest in these matters than the white press. In the end, researchers found at least 700 more lynchings in the 12 states than were previously reported, suggesting that “racial terror lynching” was far more common than was generally believed.
The report argues compellingly that the threat of death by lynching was far more influential in shaping present-day racial reality than contemporary Americans typically understand. It argues that The Great Migration from the South, in which millions of African-Americans moved North and West, was partly a forced migration in which black people fled the threat of murder at the hands of white mobs.
It sees lynching as the precursor of modern-day racial bias in the criminal justice system. The researchers argue, for example, that lynching declined as a mechanism of social control as the Southern states shifted to a capital punishment strategy, in which blacks began more frequently to be executed after expedited trials. The legacy of lynching was apparent in that public executions were still being used to mollify mobs in the 1930s even after such executions were legally banned.
Despite playing a powerful role in the shaping of Southern society, the lynching era has practically disappeared from public discourse. As the report notes: “Most Southern terror lynching victims were killed on sites that remain unmarked and unrecognized. The Southern landscape is cluttered with plaques, statues and monuments that record, celebrate and lionize generations of American defenders of white supremacy, including public officials and private citizens who perpetrated violent crimes against black citizens during the era of racial terror.”
Mr. Stevenson’s group makes the persuasive argument that this history needs to be properly commemorated and more widely discussed before the United States can fully understand the causes and origins of the racial injustice that hobbles the country to this day.

What B.R. Ambedkar Wrote to W.E.B. Du Bois
APRIL 22, 2014

     In 1913, B.R. Ambedkar arrived in New York City from Bombay at the age of twenty-two, on a scholarship to attend Columbia University that Fall and pursue an M.A. in Economics. After returning to India (not before completing a Ph.D. in London), Ambedkar would go on to become the most influential Dalit leader in India in the 20th century, the chairman of the constituent assembly that drafted the Indian constitution, and one of the most incisive theorists of caste and greatest intellectuals of modern India. From the perspective of a researcher, Dr. Ambedkar’s proximity to Harlem during his years of study at Columbia has always raised several questions about his experience in the U.S. How might have his experiences in New York impacted his thinking? Aside from his influential mentors at the University (John Dewey, Edwin Seligman, James Shotwell, and James Harvey), who were his personal acquaintances in the U.S.? And did his experience witnessing anti-Black racism in America influence his thinking on the caste question in India? Despite the many allusions to race in the U.S. in his oeuvre, Ambedkar — as far as I know — left no first hand account of his time in New York to answer such questions.
An interesting record appears in the papers of W.E.B. Du Bois, the prominent African American intellectual and activist, whose archive is housed at the University of Massachusetts. In the 1940s, Ambedkar contacted Du Bois to inquire about the National Negro Congress petition to the U.N., which attempted to secure minority rights through the U.N. council. Ambedkar explained that he had been a “student of the Negro problem,” and that “[t]here is so much similarity between the position of the Untouchables in India and of the position of the Negroes in America that the study of the latter is not only natural but necessary.” In a letter dated July 31, 1946, Du Bois responded by telling Ambedkar he was familiar with his name, and that he had “every sympathy with the Untouchables of India.”

    As other commentators have pointed out, Du Bois had long been fascinated with India’s role as a harbinger of anticolonialism.1 He had befriended Indian “Home Rule League” nationalist Lajpat Rai, during the latter’s exile in the U.S. between 1914 and 1919. Du Bois’ interest in India turned up in editorials of the N.A.A.C.P.-issued magazine The Crisis over the decades, as well as the novel Dark Princess published in 1928. For Du Bois, the cause for Indian independence was one facet of a larger movement to undo the color line that belted the world. Du Bois’ correspondence with Ambedkar, however, does not appear to extend beyond this letter.2
The analogy between the caste system and racism in the U.S., on the other hand, has a much longer and sustained history. In 1873, Jotirao Phule, an important social reformer in Maharashtra, began his polemical Gulamgiri (Slavery) with a dedication to American abolitionists “in an earnest desire that my countrymen may take their example as their guide in the emancipation of their Sudra Brethren from the trammels of Brahmin thralldom.”3 Nearly a hundred years later, an organization led by Dalit artists and activists named themselves the “Dalit Panther,” in reference to the Black Panthers in the U.S. In their manifesto, issued in 1971, the Panthers wrote: “From the Black Panthers, Black Power was established. We claim a close relationship with this struggle.”4
In honor of Dalit history month this April, we wanted to highlight this brief but important historical exchange in the archives between two important leaders in the global struggle against the systems of racism and caste.
[Special thanks to Professor Gary Tartakov for scanning and sharing these documents, and Robert Cox of the W.E.B. Du Bois Library at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst for allowing us to post them.]
1. Several books have highlighted this history, including most recently Gerald Horne’s End of Empires (2008), Dohra Ahmad’s Landscapes of Hope (2009), and Nico Slate’s Colored Cosmopolitanism (2012). Kamala Visweswaran’s Un/common Cultures (2010) contains two chapters on the work of Ambedkar and Du Bois, with reference to their correspondence.
2. For further reading on the Ambedkar-Du Bois correspondence, see Kapoor, S.D. “B.R. Ambedkar, W.E.B. Du Bois and the Process of Liberation” Economic and Political Weekly 38.51-52 (2003): 5344-5349, and Immerwahr, Daniel. “Caste or Colony? Indianizing Race in the United States” Modern Intellectual History 4.2. (2007): 275-301.
3. Prashad, Vijay. The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000. 26.
4. Limbale, Sharankumar. Dalit Panthar. Pune: Sugava Prakashan, 1989. 260.

Manan Desai teaches at Syracuse University and serves on the Board of Directors for the South Asian American Digital Archive.


Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis AdamsJanuary 28, 1865 

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant [Marx here ignores the genocide against indigenous people, the Civil War in the West…] or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world. 
Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, the Central Council:
Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;
George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.”