THE INTERNATIONAL 353membership after the Paris Commune, but it had no formal organisation
and its numbers cannot have exceeded a few thousand. The Spanish
delegate at Basle claimed 20,00 0 members and there were said to be 30
sections in America with 500 members. However, anyone familiar with
loose organisations of this kind knows how prone leaders are to exaggerate
the number of their followers, and even the figures quoted cannot have
been fee-paying members: otherwise the General Council would have
been saved all financial embarrassment.
Some basis for the larger figures can be found in a different form of
membership of the International - affiliation of trade union and political
parties.^83 In Britain the total affiliated membership of trade unions was
round 50,00 0 - out of a potential membership of around 800,000. In
I'iance as a result of the help given by the International during strikes,
the number may well have been as large. In Germany, both the ADAV
and the Verband eventually declared their adherence to the principles of
the International, though affiliation was forbidden by German Law. In the
I 'nited States the National Labour Union, which had some claim to
speak for almost a million workers, declared its adherence to the principles
11 I the International. Nevertheless, in all these countries, this commitment
was an emotional one unsupported by close organisational, doctrinal, or
except in Britain - financial links.
I'.ven in Britain, where many of the important trade union leaders sat
on the General Council and were in close contact with Marx, they evolved
working-class policies without reference to the International. The trade
union leaders were immensely impressed by Marx's intellectual qualities
and their backing gave Marx and the General Council great prestige in
dr.ding with the continent of Europe, in which the British had only a
marginal interest. But when it came to home affairs, the influence of the
International was peripheral. This was particularly so after 1867 when,
with the disappearance of the Fenian menace, any hope of altering the
1 i,mi\ 1juo in Ireland seemed lost and the success of the Reform movement
made the trade union leaders less revolutionary in their demands. Marx
was still convinced, as he had been since 1849 , that no revolution in
I'itrope could succeed without a similar movement in England. However,
in Ins growing inability to infuse the affiliated British trade unionists with
•ot'ialist theory and a revolutionary temper' was added the lack of success
11 I the International in even recruiting trade unions. After 1867 only three
limn trade unions affiliated to the International. This loss of momentum
by the International was due to its inability to attract the workers in
heavy industry - this being true of all countries with the exception of
llelgium. In Britain it was at a disadvantage since its seat was in London,
whricas most of the heavy industry was concentrated in the North; and