ons of the different
countries of the world have from the time of Karl Marx met together at
more or less regular intervals, being banded together in what is called
the "International."

The official organ of the National Office, Socialist Party, "The Eye
Opener," in its issue of February, 1919, gives a detailed explanation of
the "International":

"It is an organization of Socialist Parties and labor
organizations, meeting periodically in international conferences.
In order to be eligible for membership, an organisation must meet
the following test, adopted by the International Congress of Paris,
1900.

"Those admitted to the International Socialist Congresses are:

"1. All associations which adhere to the essential principles of
Socialism; namely, Socialization of the means of production and
exchange, international union, and action of the workers, conquest
of public power by the proletariat, organized as a class party.

"2. All the labor organizations which accept the principles of the
class struggle and recognize the necessity of political action,
legislative and parliamentary but do not participate directly in
the political movement.

"This definition includes every Socialist Party and propaganda
organization in the world and it further takes in those enlightened
unions that recognize the need for political action. It excludes
conservative unions that do not yet admit the soundness of the
principles of the class struggle."

The First International was thoroughly Marxian and revolutionary.
According to "The Revolutionary Age," April 12, 1919, it accepted the
revolutionary struggle against capitalism and waged that struggle with
all the means in its power. It considered its objective to be the
conquest of power by the revolutionary proletariat, the annihilation of
the bourgeois state, and the introduction of a new proletarian state,
functioning temporarily as a dictatorship of the proletariat. The First
International collapsed after the Franco-Prussian War.

The Second International was formed at Paris in the year 1889. Its
tendencies were much more moderate than those of its predecessor. "The
Revolutionary Age," April 12, 1919, criticises it for being
"conservative and petty bourgeois in spirit," and states that "it was
part and parcel of the national liberal movement, not at all
revolutionary, dominated by the co