[Transcriber's note:
It is noted that on page 92 "From December 1, 1894, to September 12,
1892, 329 francs 75 centimes was collected;" that the dates are not
sequential. The word _sabotage_ has been consistently placed in italics.
Individual correction of printers' errors are listed at the end.]
STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC LAW
EDITED BY THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Volume XLVI] [Number 3
Whole Number 116
SYNDICALISM IN FRANCE
BY
LOUIS LEVINE
WITH AN INTRODUCTION
BY
PROFESSOR FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS
SECOND REVISED EDITION
OF
"The Labor Movement in France"
AMS PRESS
NEW YORK
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
STUDIES IN THE
SOCIAL SCIENCES
116
COPYRIGHT 1912
BY
LOUIS LEVINE
The series was formerly known as _Studies in History,
Economics and Public Law_.
Reprinted with the permission of Columbia University Press
From the edition of 1914, New York
First AMS EDITION published 1970
Manufactured in the United States of America
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 76-127443
International Standard Book Number:
Complete Set ... 0-404-51000-0
Number 116 ... 0-404-51116-3
AMS PRESS, INC.
New York, N.Y. 10003
The term syndicalism sounds strange to an English reader. Its equivalent
in English would be Unionism. A syndicat is a union of workingmen, on a
trade or on an industrial basis, for the defense of economic interests.
Revolutionary Syndicalism, however, has a broader connotation than the
etymology of the term would suggest. A critical analysis of existing
institutions, a socialist ideal, and a peculiar conception of
revolutionary methods to be used for the realization of the ideal--are
all contained in it. Revolutionary Syndicalism appears, therefore, as a
phase of the general movement towards a reorganization of society on
socialist principles.[1]
[1] The term "socialist" is here used in a wide sense to include all
varieties, even communistic anarchism.
Revolutionary Syndicalism cannot be treated, however, exclusively as a
phase of the evolution of Socialism. As the term suggests, it is also a
development of the French Labor Movement. The organization which
represents Revolutionary Syndicalism in France is the General
Confederation of Labor (_La Confédération Générale du Travail_,
generally referred to as the C. G. T.)--the central organization of the
labor unions or syndicats in France. The history of Revolutionary
Syndicalism coincides almost entirely with the history of the General
Confederation, and it may be said that its future is entirely bound up
with the destinies of this organization.
In fact, Revolutionary Syndicalism is an attempt to fuse revolutionary
socialism and trade unionism into one coherent movement. Peculiar
conditions of French social history have thrown the socialists and
anarchists into the syndicats and have secured their leadership there.
In this respect, Revolutionary Syndicalism is a unique and interesting
chapter in the history of both Socialism and Trades unionism and of
their mutual relations.
Revolutionary Syndicalism has attracted much attention outside of
France. Its more or less rapid development, the turmoil into which it
has thrown France several times, the extreme ideas which it expresses,
the violent methods it advocates, and its attempts of proselytism
outside of France have awakened an interest in it. A number of studies
on the movement have appeared in German, Italian, Russian and other
European periodicals and books. In English, however, the subject has not
received the consideration it would seem to deserve from the theoretical
as well as from the practical point of view.
Revolutionary Syndicalism is an aggressive movement. Its aim is to do
away with existing institutions and to reconstruct society along new
lines. It must, therefore, necessarily call forth a definite attitude on
the part of those who become acquainted with it. Those who speak about
it are either its friends or its enemies, and even those who want to be
impartial towards it are generally unable to resist the flood of
sentiment which such a movement sets loose in them.
Impartiality, however, has been the main effort of the writer of this
study. It has appeared to him more important to describe the facts as
they are and to understand the conditions back of the facts, than to
pass sentence whether of approval or of condemnation. He has made the
effort, therefore, to suppress his personality entirely in all that part
of his work which is purely descriptive. The method adopted has been to
describe ideas and facts sympathetically--whether syndicalist or
anti-syndicalist, whether promoting or hindering the development of
Revolutionary Syndicalism.
The idea that has guided the writer is as follows: Let us imagine that
social phenomena could be registered automatically. All social facts
would then be recorded with all the sympathies and antipathies with
which they are mixed in real life, because the latter are part of the
facts. When social descriptions go wrong it is not because they are
tinged with feeling, but because they are colored by those feelings
which they arouse in the writer and not by those which accompany them in
reality. The main task of the writer, therefore, is to try to enter into
the feelings which go along with the facts which he is describing.
This means that the writer must alternately feel and think as a
different person. However difficult this may be, it is still possible by
an effort of imagination prompted by a desire to get at the truth.
This method seems more correct than an attempt to remain entirely
indifferent and not to be swayed by any feeling. Indifference does not
secure impartiality; it results mostly in colorlessness. For instance,
were the writer to remain indifferent or critical while describing the
syndicalist ideas, the latter could not be outlined with all the force
and color with which they appear in the exposition of their
representatives. This would not produce an impartial description,
therefore, but a weak and consequently untrue one. On the contrary, by
trying to feel and to think as a revolutionary syndicalist, while
describing the syndicalist ideas, it is possible to come nearer to
reality. The same method is used in the description of anti-syndicalist
ideas and efforts.
The result seems to the writer to be the creation of the necessary
illusion and the reproduction of the atmosphere in which the movement
developed. A critical and personal attitude has been taken only when the
writer wished to express his own views. Whether the writer has been more
successful than others in this attempt, is for the reader to decide.
From the point of view taken in this essay, Revolutionary Syndicalism
has to be described both as a theory and as a practice. The effort is
made throughout, however, to consider the theory in close relation to
the practice.
The first chapter is introductory and serves merely to give the
necessary historical perspective. This explains its brevity.
Revolutionary Syndicalism is undoubtedly a peculiar product of French
life and history. Still many of its ideas have a general character and
may be of interest to men and women of other countries. After all, the
problems that confront the whole civilized world to-day are the same,
and the conditions in which their solution has to be tried are
everywhere alike in many respects. It has been the writer's sincere hope
throughout this work that the history of syndicalism may stimulate the
readers of this essay to reflection and criticism that may be of help to
them in their efforts to advance the cause of social progress in their
own country.
The author wishes to make grateful acknowledgments to Professor Vladimir
G. Simkhovitch, Professor Henry Rogers Seager and other professors of
Columbia University who have in one way or another aided him in the
prosecution of his work; but especially is he indebted to Professor
Franklin H. Giddings for invaluable criticisms and suggestions which
have guided him throughout his work, and to Professor Edwin R. A.
Seligman for encouragement and advice, and help in making it possible
for the work to appear in its present form.
NOVEMBER, 1911. LOUIS LEVINE.
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION
The term syndicalism no longer needs an introduction to the English
reader. Within the past two years it has been naturalized in all
English-speaking countries, and has become more or less widely known. It
has even been enriched as a result of its migration. In France it simply
expressed the comparatively innocent idea of trade unionism, while both
in England and America it has come to designate those explosive and
aggressive forms of labor unionism which the French described in the
words "revolutionary syndicalism." The English use of the term has
reacted upon the French syndicalists who have now generally dropped the
adjective "revolutionary" and speak of their movement as "le
syndicalisme" or "le syndicalisme français." In a word, as a result of
recent industrial events the world over, syndicalism has emerged as a
new movement of international scope and character. The most significant
manifestation of this new development was the first international
syndicalist congress which was held in London during the month of
September of last year and at which delegates from France, Germany,
Holland, Belgium, the United States, England and other countries were
present.
The appearance of syndicalist tendencies in other countries has thrown
some new light upon the subject. What was considered at one time the
peculiar product of France or of the "Latin spirit," appears now to
transcend the boundaries of particular countries and of kindred racial
groups. It is evidently more closely related to industrial conditions.
But its emergence in such countries as England and the United States
destroys the familiar hypothesis that syndicalism is bred only by the
small workshop. The latter may explain some peculiar aspects of French
syndicalism; it can not explain the methods of direct action and the
syndicalist spirit common to all countries.
The explanation seems to me to lie in the direction indicated in the
concluding chapter of this book. Three essential causes for the
development of French syndicalism are pointed out in it: namely,
political disillusionment, the economic weakness of the labor elements,
and the comparatively static character of French industry. Recent
industrial developments in England and the United States prove that the
same conditions explain the appearance of syndicalist tendencies
everywhere. The disappointment of the British workers in the political
possibilities of the Labor Party, the general mistrust of "politicians"
and the actual disfranchisement of large elements of the working
population in the United States are facts which are not disputed, and
the influence of which in recent industrial events is no longer denied.
The comparative weakness of sectional unionism in England and of the
unskilled elements in the American labor movement has been brought home
to the workers themselves and has determined their change of tactics.
Some French syndicalists have criticized the author of this book for
laying too much emphasis on the financial weakness of the syndicats in
France. But that is a misunderstanding on their part; the emphasis is
not on finances, but on weakness which may be the result of many
circumstances. Labor unions may have millions in the banks, and still be
weak economically on account of the technical conditions of the industry
or of the strong organization of the employers. A consciousness of
weakness in certain respects must not lead necessarily to submission or
to despair. But it generally leads to efforts in new directions and to
new methods of action. It has resulted in the amalgamation of unions in
England and in the wonderful effort to create a general spirit of
solidarity among all elements of labor the world over.
The comparatively static character of industrial life in France has no
parallel in England or the United States. This explains why in the
latter two countries the ideal aspects of syndicalism have obtained less
significance, than in France. In an atmosphere of slow industrial
growth, possibilities of immediate industrial gains do not loom up large
in the eyes of the workers and no hope of considerable permanent
improvement under given conditions is aroused; on the other hand, the
forcible acquisition of the whole industrial equipment and its
co-operative management seem comparatively easy.
In the concluding chapter of this book, the possibilities of a change in
the character of French syndicalism which were indicated in the first
edition are left unchanged. Developments are not yet ripe to warrant any
definite conclusion. Of course, some very important phenomena have taken
place. The most significant, perhaps, is the development of the iron and
steel industry in the eastern parts of France, particularly in the
Department Meurthe-et-Moselle. Something very similar to what happened
in the steel industry of the United States is happening there; large
plants are being erected, gigantic industrial combinations are being
formed, labor organizations are relentlessly fought, and foreign workers
are imported from Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and other
countries. Under these conditions, new problems are thrust upon the
French labor movement, and it is significant that the Federation of the
metal workers has played the leading part in the recent campaign against
the "anarchistic" tendencies of the General Confederation of Labor and
has demanded a return to the platform of Amiens (1906) and to a more
definite program of labor demands. This does not mean a change in the
ideas of French syndicalism, but it certainly indicates a tendency
towards the more positive work of organization and of purely trade
conquests.
It may be many years, before the struggle of tendencies in the General
Confederation of Labor is determined either way. Meanwhile, the
significance of French Syndicalism to the world of thought and action
has become greater than it was before. France continues to present both
the ideas and activities of syndicalism in the most lucid and developed
form.
This fact, I take it, has been partly responsible for the keen interest
in the first edition of this book and for the necessity of bringing
forth a second edition.
LOUIS LEVINE.
NEW YORK CITY, MARCH, 1914.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION 5
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION 9
INTRODUCTION, by Professor Franklin H. Giddings 17
CHAPTER I THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN FRANCE TO THE COMMUNE(1789-1871)
Legislation of French Revolution on trade associations; law le
Chapelier, 1791--Laws of Napoleon--Prohibition of
strikes--Violation of these laws--Secret labor organizations in
France: compagnonnages, societies of resistance--Revolution of
1848 and the co-operative movement--Influence of Louis
Blanc--Reaction during the fifties--Revival of labor movement in
1862--Effort of French Workingmen to break legal barriers--New
law on strikes in 1864--Toleration of labor unions by Government
of Napoleon III--Syndicats and co-operation--Failure of
co-operative central bank in 1868--Communistic and Revolutionary
tendencies in "The International"--Success of "The International"
in 1869--Franco-Prussian War and its influence on the French
labor movement 19
CHAPTER II ORIGIN OF THE GENERAL CONFEDERATION OF LABOR (1871-1895)
The influence of the Commune on the syndicats--Barberet and his
rôle in the syndical movement (1872-78)--The first Labor
Congress in France (1886)--Acceptance of the Socialist program
by the syndicats at the congress of Marseilles (1879)--The
Socialist groups in France: Guesdists, Broussists, Allemanists,
Blanquists, Independents, Anarchists--Their points of agreement
and of difference--Influence of socialist divisions on
development of labor organizations--Attempts of syndicats to
form a central organization--The National Federation of
Syndicats; its failure--The Bourse du Travail--The Federation of
Bourses du Travail--The idea of the general strike--Its
conception--Criticism by Guesdists--Split in National Federation
of Syndicats--Formation of General Confederation of Labor by
advocates of general strike and opponents of Guesdists 45
CHAPTER III THE FEDERATION OF BOURSES DU TRAVAIL
Importance of Bourses du Travail; their rapid growth--Municipal
and governmental subventions--Program of Bourses du
Travail--Federation of Bourses du Travail organized in 1892--Its
original purpose--Fernand Pelloutier Secretary of
Federation--His rôle and influence--Conception of syndicat as
the cell of future society--Growth of Federation of Bourses; its
relations with the General Confederation of Labor 73
CHAPTER IV THE GENERAL CONFEDERATION OF LABOR FROM 1895-1902
Reasons for dividing history of General Confederation into two
periods--Weakness of Confederation before 1902--Congress of
Tours in 1896--Discussion of the idea of the general
strike--Congress of Toulouse in 1897--Discussion of _sabotage_ and
boycott and of "Direct Action"--Congress of Rennes in
1898--Congresses of Paris in 1900 and of Lyons in
1901--Revolutionary character of Congress of Lyons: New
conception of general strike; revolutionary character of
syndicat; anti-militaristic ideas; opposition to labor
legislation--Causes of revolutionary ideas: changes in the
program and methods of socialist parties; Dreyfus affair;
entrance of socialist Millerand into "bourgeois"
government--Congress of Montpellier in 1902 and the fusion of
the Federation of Bourses du Travail with the General
Confederation of Labor 91
CHAPTER V THE DOCTRINE OF REVOLUTIONARY SYNDICALISM
Class struggle, its meaning and importance--Syndicat the proper
organization for carrying on class struggle--Strength of
syndicat by uniting workingmen without distinction of race,
religion, political or philosophical ideas--Industrial unionism
versus Craft unionism--Syndicats and "Direct Action"--Methods of
"Direct Action:" strike, boycott, _sabotage_, label--The direct
struggle against the State; exclusion of parliamentary
methods--Criticism of democracy--Class struggle versus
co-operation of classes--Anti-patriotism--Anti-militarism--General
strike the means of emancipating workingmen--The ideal society of
the syndicalists: economic federalism--The rôle of the "conscious
minority"--Syndicats the true leaders of the working-class 123
CHAPTER VI THE THEORISTS OF REVOLUTIONARY SYNDICALISM
Two groups of writers on syndicalism, (_a_) workingmen (_b_)
intellectuals--Their points of disagreement--Representative of
intellectuals; Georges Sorel--His works--His conception of
syndicalism as neo-Marxism--Fundamental idea of Marx; no
Utopias--Task of socialists to teach workingmen--The importance
of the idea of the general strike--The general strike a "social
myth"--What is a "social myth?"--Importance of "social myths" in
revolutionary movements--The general strike as a means of
producing a complete rupture between working-class and
bourgeoisie--Sorel's theory of progress; only technical progress
continuous; succession of cultures not continuous--Necessity of
combating democracy--Democracy--the régime of professional
politicians who rule the people--Class struggle and
violence; meaning of violence--General strike a great moral
force--Syndicalist ideas founded on pessimistic basis--Pessimism
as cause of great historical achievements--Ideas of
Bergson--Criticism of Sorel; neo-Marxism not true to spirit of
Marx--Lagardelle and his writings--Gustave Hervé and "La Guerre
Sociale"--Influence of Sorel--Criticism of Prof. Sombart's
views--Syndicalism a development independent of Sorel--Relation
of syndicalism to other social theories 141
CHAPTER VII THE GENERAL CONFEDERATION OF LABOR SINCE 1902
Constitution of General Confederation of Labor adopted in
1902--Activity of General Confederation--Movement to suppress
employment bureaus--Congress of Bourges in 1904--Triumph of
revolutionary syndicalism--Movement for eight-hour day
from 1904 to 1906--Agitation in France--Fear of "social
revolution"--Government arrests leaders--Results of strike
movement--Congress of Amiens in 1906--Struggle between
revolutionaries and reformists--Adoption of resolution "the
charter of syndicalism"--Revolutionary activity of Confederation
after Congress of Amiens Demonstration of Villeneuve St. George
in 1908--Collision with troops; killed and wounded; arrest of
syndicalist leaders--Congress of Marseilles in 1908--Congress of
Toulouse in 1910--Congress of Havre in 1912--Growth of General
Confederation of Labor--The demonstrations of the General
Confederation against war--The "crisis" of revolutionary
syndicalism--Relations of General Confederation with
International Secretariat of Labor 162
CHAPTER VIII CHARACTER AND CONDITIONS OF REVOLUTIONARY
SYNDICALISM
Revolutionary syndicalism as a result of a coalition
in the Confederation--The parties to this _bloc_:
anarchists, revolutionary socialists, syndicalists--Formation
and strength of the _bloc_--The socialist ideal of a free
workshop--Historical traditions and the revolutionary spirit in
French workingmen--Causes of the distrust of "politicians" and of
parliamentary methods--The antagonism between workingman and
intellectual--Revolutionary syndicalists not a minority in
General Confederation--Conditions of syndicalism: poverty of
French syndicats; psychology of French workingmen--Syndicats
loosely held together--Weakness as cause of violent
methods--French love of theory and of formulas--Similar actions
of revolutionists and reformists in Confederation according to
circumstances--Conditions necessary for realization of program
of revolutionary syndicalism--Outlook for the future 199
BIBLIOGRAPHY 223
INTRODUCTION
The democratic social movement has overleaped its platform and escaped
out of the hands of its instigators. It is larger than any school of
ideas and will not be bound by any program. It can be analyzed in part,
and in general terms described, but it can no longer be defined.
Socialism as one phase of this unmanaged and unmanageable tide, has
itself been profoundly affected by the magnitude, the complexity, and
the waywardness of the mass motion. It now has its "Right" and its
"Left." There is a conservative, and there is a radical socialism. Each
proclaims the class struggle, and both demand the collective ownership
of the chief means of production. But conservative socialism lays stress
upon collective ownership, and would move toward it by peaceful,
evolutionary steps. It relies on the ballot, believes in legislation, in
law, and in government; while radical socialism proclaims "the
revolution," plans for the general strike, and preaches the expediency
of _sabotage_ and violence.
At first sight almost identical with radical socialism is Syndicalism,
which, however, proves upon examination to be both more and less than
any socialistic program. In its most characteristic expression,
syndicalism denies the state and would substitute for it a purely
voluntary collectivism. So far it is at one with anarchism, and there
are those who conceive of syndicalism as an anarchistic movement in
opposition to socialism. The trade-union organization of labor the world
over is looked upon by the syndicalist as the natural basis and agency
of his enterprise, quite as existing political organizations are
accepted by the conservative or parliamentary socialist as the best
preliminary norms from which to evolve a new social order.
In this division of the forces of social democracy into right and left
groups over the question of organization and control, we have a
significant demonstration of the inadequacy of that Marxian analysis
which resolves all social conflict into the antagonism of economic
classes. More profound than that antagonism, and in the order of time
more ancient, is the unending warfare between those who believe in law
and government for all, and those who believe in law and government for
none. The more or less paradoxical character of the socialistic movement
at the present moment is attributable to the circumstance that, for the
time being, these antagonistic forces of socialism and anarchism are
confronting a common enemy--the individualist, who believes in law and
government for everybody but himself.
To describe, explain and estimate a phenomenon so complex as modern
revolutionary syndicalism is a task from which the economist and the
historian alike might well shrink. To understand it and to enable
readers to understand it is an achievement. I think that I am not
speaking in terms of exaggeration in saying that Dr. Levine has been
more successful in this arduous undertaking than any predecessor. His
pages tell us in a clear and dispassionate way what revolutionary
syndicalism is, how it began, and how it has grown, what its informing
ideas and purposes are, and by what methods it is forcing itself upon
the serious attention of the civilized world. I think that it is a book
which no student of affairs can afford to overlook, or to read in any
other spirit than that of a sincere desire to know what account of the
most profound social disturbance of our time is offered by a competent
reporter of the facts.
FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.
CHAPTER I
THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN FRANCE TO THE COMMUNE (1789-1871)
The economic legislation of the French Revolution was guided by
individualistic ideas which expressed the interests of the rising middle
classes who felt a necessity of removing the obstacles in the way of
economic initiative and of personal effort. These interests and ideas
dictated the law of March 2-17, 1791, which abolished the guilds and
inaugurated the era of competition in France (_Liberté du Travail_). The
law declared that henceforth everybody was "free to do such business,
exercise such profession, art, or trade, as he may choose."[2]
[2] _Les Associations Professionelles Ouvrières_, Office du Travail
(Paris, 1899), vol. i, p. 7.
The abolition of the guilds cleared the way for the technical changes
that had just begun and the development of which was yet in the future.
These changes may be summarized as the application of science to
industry and the introduction of machinery. The process went on in
France irregularly, affecting different industries and different
localities in various degrees. The first machine (_machine à vapeur_)
was introduced in France about 1815; in 1830 there were about 600 in
operation. Some idea of the later changes may be gained from the
following table giving the number of machines in France from 1839 to
1907:
_Year_ _No. of Machines_ _Total Horsepower_
1839 2,450 33,000
1851 5,672 71,000
1861 15,805 191,000
1871 26,146 316,000
1881 44,010 576,000
1891 55,967 916,000
1901 75,866 1,907,000
1910 82,238 2,913,013[3]
[3] _Annuaire Statistique_.
The introduction of machinery meant the absorption of a larger part of
the population in industry, the concentration of industry in a smaller
number of establishments and the absolute and relative increase in the
numbers of the working population of France.
This class of the population was regulated in its economic action for
nearly a century by another law passed June 14-17, 1791, and known by
the name of its author as the law Le Chapelier. The law Le Chapelier,
though dictated by the same general interests and ideas as the law on
the guilds, was made necessary by special circumstances.
The abolition of the guilds had as one of its effects an agitation among
the journeymen for higher wages and for better conditions of employment.
During the summer of 1791, Paris was the scene of large meetings of
journeymen, at which matters of work and wages were discussed. The
movement spread from trade to trade, but the struggle was particularly
acute in the building trades. Profiting by the law of August 21, 1790,
which gave all citizens the "right to assemble peacefully and to form
among themselves free associations subject only to the laws which all
citizens must obey,"[4] the carpenters formed _L'Union fraternelle des
ouvriers en l'art de la charpente_, an association ostensibly for
benevolent purposes only, but which in reality helped the carpenters in
their struggle with their masters. The masters repeatedly petitioned the
municipality of Paris to put an end to the "disorders," and to the
"tyranny" of the journeymen. The masters complained that a general
coalition of 80,000 workingmen had been formed in the capital and that
the agitation was spreading to the provincial towns.[5] The municipal
authorities tried to meet the situation, but their "notices" and
"decrees" had no effect. They then appealed to the Constituent Assembly
for a general law on associations and combinations. The result was the
law Le Chapelier.
[4] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, p. 8.
[5] H. Lagardelle, _L'Évolution des Syndicats Ouvriers en France_
(Paris, 1901), p. 13.
The report by which the bill was introduced brought out very clearly the
individualistic ideas by which the legislators of the Revolution were
inspired. "Citizens of certain trades," read this report, "must not be
permitted to assemble for their pretended common interests. There is no
longer any corporation (guild) in the State; there is but the particular
interest of each individual and the general interest...." And further,
"It is necessary to abide by the principle that only by free contracts,
between individual and individual, may the workday for each workingman
be fixed; it is then for the workingman to maintain the agreement which
he had made with his employer."[6]
[6] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, pp. 11-12.
The law identified the new combinations with the ancient guilds. Its
first clause declared that "whereas the abolition of all kinds of
corporations of citizens of the same estate (_état_) and of the same
trade is one of the fundamental bases of the French Constitution, it is
prohibited to re-establish them _de facto_ under any pretext or form
whatsoever". The second clause formulated the prohibition to form trade
organizations in terms which left nothing to be desired in clearness and
precision. It read: "The citizens of the same estate or trade,
entrepreneurs, those who run a shop, workingmen in any trade whatsoever,
shall not, when assembled together, nominate presidents, nor
secretaries, nor syndics, shall not keep any records, shall not
deliberate nor pass resolutions nor form any regulations with reference
to their pretended common interests." The fourth clause declared all
acts contrary to this law unconstitutional, subject to the jurisdiction
of the police tribunals, punishable by a fine of 500 _livres_ and by a
temporary suspension of active rights of citizenship. The sixth and
seventh clauses determined higher penalties in cases of menace and of
violence. The eighth clause prohibited all "gatherings composed of
artisans, of workingmen, of journeymen or of laborers, or instigated by
them and directed against the free exercise of industry and work to
which all sorts of persons have a right under all sorts of conditions
agreed upon by private contract (_de gré a gré_)". "Such gatherings are
declared riotous, are to be dispersed by force, and are to be punished
with all the severity which the law permits."[7]
[7] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, pp. 13-14.
After the law was passed by the Assembly, the author of the law, Le
Chapelier, added:
I have heard some say that it would be necessary to make an
exception in favor of the Chambers of Commerce in cities. Certainly
you understand well that none of us intend to prevent the merchants
from discussing their common interests. I therefore propose to
insert into the proceedings the following clause: "The National
Assembly, considering that the law which it has just passed does
not concern the Chambers of Commerce, passes to the order of the
day."
The proposition was adopted. "This last vote," remarks the official
historian of the _Office du Travail_, "demonstrates sufficiently that
the law was especially directed against the meetings, associations and
coalitions of workingmen."[8]
[8] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, p. 14.
The determination to prevent collective action on the part of the
workingmen also guided the legislative activity of Napoleon. In 1803,
during the Consulate, a law was passed against coalitions; the same law
contained a provision whereby all workingmen were to have a special
certificate (_livret_)[9] which subjected them to a strict surveillance
of the police. The law of 1803 against coalitions was replaced in 1810
by the clauses 414-416 of the Penal Code which prohibited and punished
all kinds of coalitions. These articles which made strikes and all
collective action a crime, and which showed clearly discrimination
against workingmen, were as follows:
[9] The obligation of the _livret_ was abolished in 1890. G. Weill,
_Histoire du Movement Social en France_ (Paris, 1904), p. 332.
Art. 414. Any coalition among those who employ workingmen, tending
to force down wages unjustly and abusively, followed by an attempt
or a commencement of execution, shall be punished by imprisonment
from six days to one month and by a fine of 200 to 3,000 francs.
Art. 415. Any coalition on the part of the workingmen to cease work
at the same time, to forbid work in a shop, to prevent the coming
or leaving before or after certain hours and, in general, to
suspend, hinder or make dear labor, if there has been an attempt or
a beginning of execution, shall be punished by imprisonment of one
month to three months maximum; the leaders and promoters shall be
punished by imprisonment of two to five years, and
Art. 416. There shall also be subject to penalty indicated in the
preceding article and according to the same distinctions, those
workingmen who shall have declared fines, prohibitions,
interdictions and any other proscriptions under the name of
condemnations and under any qualification whatsoever against the
directors of the shops and employers, or against each other.
In the case of this article as well as in that of the preceding,
the leaders and promoters of the crime, after the expiration of
their fine, may be made subject to the surveillance of the police
for two years at least and five years at most.[10]
[10] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, pp. 18-19.
The prohibition against combination and organization was aggravated for
the workingmen by articles 291-294 of the Penal Code which forbade any
kind of associations of more than twenty persons. These articles were
made more stringent by the Law of 1834 which prohibited associations
even of twenty persons, if they were branches of a larger
association.[11]
[11] _Ibid._, pp. 19-20, and p. 26.
The workingmen, however, soon began to feel that the _Liberté du
Travail_ as interpreted by the laws of the country put them at a
disadvantage in the struggle for existence. Individually each one of
them was too weak to obtain the best bargain from his employer. This was
notoriously so in the industries in which machinery was making headway,
but the relations between employer and workingmen were aggravated by
competition even in those industries where the old conditions of trade
did not change perceptibly for some time. Competition forced the
employer to become a "calculator above everything else" and "to consider
the workingman only from the point of view of the real value which his
hands had on the market without heed to his human needs."[12] The
workingman, on the other hand, to remedy his individual helplessness
was driven to disregard the law and to enter into combinations with his
fellow-workers for concerted action.
[12] M. Du Cellier, _Histoire des Classes Laborieuses en France_ (Paris,
1860), p. 362.
The figures published by the Department of Justice give the number of
those prosecuted for violating the law on strikes--the number of
accused, of acquitted and of condemned. These figures are incomplete.
They give, however, some idea of the frequency and persistence with
which the workingmen had recourse to strikes in spite of the law. The
figures have been published since 1825. The table on the next page gives
the annual figures from that date to 1864, when a new law on strikes was
passed.
There is other information to show that the strikes often assumed the
character of a general movement, particularly under the influence of
political disturbances. During the years that followed the Revolution of
July (1830) the workingmen of France were at times in a state of
agitation throughout the entire country, formulating everywhere
particular demands, such as the regulation of industrial matters,
collective contracts and the like.[13]
[13] Octave Festy, _Le Movement Ouvrier au Début de la Monarchie de
Juillet_, _passim_.
------+------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------
| | | |Condemned|Condemned|
| | | |to Prison|to Prison|
|Number| | | for One |for Less |Condemned
| of | | | Year or | than a |to Pay a
Year |Cases |Accused|Acquitted| More | Year |Fine Only
------+------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------
1825 | 92 | 144 | 72 | 1 | 64 | 7
1826 | 40 | 244 | 62 | 3 | 136 | 43
1827 | 29 | 136 | 51 | 2 | 74 | 9
1828 | 28 | 172 | 84 | .. | 85 | 3
1829 | 13 | 68 | 26 | 1 | 39 | 2
1830 | 40 | 206 | 69 | 2 | 134 | 1
1831 | 49 | 396 | 104 | .. | 279 | 13
1832 | 51 | 249 | 85 | 1 | 140 | 23
1833 | 90 | 522 | 218 | 7 | 270 | 27
1834 | 55 | 415 | 155 | 7 | 227 | 26
1835 | 32 | 238 | 84 | 1 | 141 | 12
1836 | 55 | 332 | 87 | .. | 226 | 19
1837 | 51 | 300 | 64 | 5 | 167 | 64
1838 | 44 | 266 | 86 | 1 | 135 | 44
1839 | 64 | 409 | 116 | 3 | 264 | 26
1840 | 130 | 682 | 139 | 22 | 476 | 45
1841 | 68 | 383 | 79 | .. | 237 | 67
1842 | 62 | 371 | 80 | 2 | 263 | 26
1843 | 49 | 321 | 73 | .. | 240 | 8
1844 | 53 | 298 | 48 | .. | 201 | 49
1845 | 48 | 297 | 92 | 3 | 778 | 124
1846 | 53 | 298 | 47 | .. | 220 | 31
1847 | 55 | 401 | 66 | 2 | 301 | 32
1848 | 94 | 560 | 124 | 2 | 399 | 35
1849 | 65 | 345 | 61 | 1 | 241 | 42
1850 | 45 | 329 | 59 | 14 | 182 | 74
1851 | 55 | 267 | 33 | 6 | 199 | 29
1852 | 86 | 573 | 119 | 2 | 396 | 56
1853 | 109 | 718 | 105 | 1 | 530 | 82
1854 | 68 | 315 | 51 | 13 | 196 | 55
1855 | 168 | 1182 | 117 | 24 | 943 | 98
1856 | 73 | 452 | 83 | 4 | 269 | 96
1857 | 55 | 300 | 37 | 11 | 204 | 48
1858 | 58 | 269 | 34 | 1 | 202 | 32
1859 | 58 | 281 | 29 | .. | 223 | 29
1860 | 58 | 297 | 34 | .. | 230 | 33
1861 | 63 | 402 | 78 | .. | 283 | 41
1862 | 44 | 306 | 44 | 1 | 199 | 62
1863 | 29 | 134 | 17 | .. | 43 | 74
------+------+-------+---------+---------+---------+---------
In many cases, the strikes were spontaneous outbursts of discontent
among unorganized workingmen. Frequently, however, the strikes were
either consciously called out or directed by organizations which existed
by avoiding the law in various ways.
These organizations were of three different types: the _compagnonnages_,
the friendly societies (_mutualités_) and the "societies of resistance".
The _compagnonnages_ originated under the guild-system and can be traced
back as far as the fifteenth century. Their development was probably
connected with the custom of traveling which became prevalent among the
journeymen of France about that time.[14] A journeyman (called
_compagnon_ in French) would usually spend some time in visiting the
principal cities of France (make his _tour de France_) to perfect
himself in his trade. A traveling _compagnon_ would be in need of
assistance in many cases and the _compagnonnages_ owed their development
to the necessity of meeting this want.
[14] Octave Festy, _Le Movement Ouvrier au Début de la Monarchie de
France_ (Paris, 1900), vol. i, pp. 600 _et seq._
The _compagnonnages_ consisted of bachelor journeymen only. If a member
married or established himself as master, he left the _compagnonnage_.
Besides, admission to the _compagnonnage_ was dependent on tests of
moral character and of technical skill. Thus, the _compagnonnages_
always embraced but a small part of the workingmen--the élite from the
technical point of view. To attain the required technical standard,
members had to pass some time as aspirants before they could become
_compagnons_.
The organization of the _compagnonnages_ was very simple. All the
_compagnons_ of the same trade lived together in one house, usually in
an inn, kept by the so-called _mère_ (mother) or _père_ (father) of the
trade. The _compagnons_ were generally the only boarders in the house.
If not numerous enough to occupy the entire house, they had one hall for
their exclusive occupation. Here they held their meetings, initiated new
members, and kept their records and treasury. Here, also, _compagnons_
arriving from other towns made themselves "recognized" by special signs
and symbols.
All the _compagnons_ of France were divided among three "orders" called
_devoirs_. The _devoirs_ had strange names indicating the legends with
which the origins of these organizations were connected. The _devoir_,
"Sons of Master Jack" (_Enfants de Maitre Jacques_) was founded,
according to the story, by one of the master-builders of King Solomon's
Temple. The "Sons of Solomon" (_Enfants de Solomon_) were sure that
their order was founded by King Solomon himself. The "Sons of Master
Soubise" regarded another builder of Solomon's Temple as the founder of
their _devoir_. Each _devoir_ consisted of a number of trades, and
sometimes one and the same trade was divided between two _devoirs_.
Ceremonies and rites constituted an inseparable part of the
_compagnonnages_. The initiation of a new member, the "recognition" of a
newly arrived _compagnon_, the meeting of two traveling _compagnons_ on
the road, etc., were occasions for strange and complicated ceremonies
which had to be accurately performed. These ceremonies were due in a
large measure to the secrecy in which the _compagnonnages_ developed
under the ancient régime, persecuted as they were by the royal
authorities, by the church, and by the master-craftsmen.
Within the _compagnonnages_ the feeling of corporate exclusiveness and
the idea of hierarchical distinctions were strong. Emblems of
distinction, such as ribbons, canes, etc., were worn on solemn
occasions, and the way in which they were worn, or their number, or
color, indicated the place of the _compagnonnage_ within the whole
corporate body. Many riots and bloody encounters were occasioned between
_devoir_ and _devoir_ and between different _compagnonnages_ within each
_devoir_ by disputes over "ribbons" and other emblems appropriate to
each. For instance, the joiners were friends of the carpenters and of
the stonecutters, but were enemies of the smiths whom the other two
trades accepted. The smiths rejected the harness-makers. The blacksmiths
accepted the wheelwrights on condition that the latter wear their
colors in a low buttonhole; the wheelwrights promised but did not keep
their promise; they wore their colors as high as the blacksmiths; hence
hatred and quarrels. The carpenters wore their colors in their hats; the
winnowers wanted to wear them in the same way; that was enough to make
them sworn enemies.[15] Besides, the _compagnonnages_ did not strive to
embrace all members of the same trade or all trades. On the contrary,
they were averse to initiating a new trade and it sometimes took decades
before a new trade was fully admitted into the organization.
[15] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, p. 95.
While these features harked back to the past, the economic functions of
the _compagnonnages_ anticipated and really were a primitive form of the
later syndicat. The _compagnonnages_ offered effective protection to the
_compagnons_ in hard stresses of life as well as in their difficulties
with their masters. "The 'devoir' of the compagnons" (read the statutes
of one of these societies) "is a fraternal alliance which unites us all
by the sacred ties of friendship, the foundations of which are: virtue,
frankness, honesty, love of labor, courage, assistance and
fidelity."[16] These abstract terms translated themselves in life into
concrete deeds of mutual aid and of assistance which were immensely
valuable to the traveling _compagnons_. A traveling _compagnon_, on
arriving at a city or town, would only have to make himself "recognized"
and his fellow-compagnons would take care of him. He would be given
lodging and food. Employment would be found for him. If sick or in
distress, he would receive aid. If he wished to leave the town to
continue his _tour de France_, he would be assisted and would be
accompanied some distance on the road.
[16] Maxime Leroy, _Syndicats et Services Publics_ (Paris, 1909), p.
12.
With their simple organization, the _compagnons_ were able to exert a
strong economic influence. They served as bureaus of employment. One
_compagnon_, elected _rouleur_, was charged with the duty of finding
employment for _compagnons_ and "aspirants". He kept a list of those in
need of work and placed them in the order of their inscription. Usually
the masters themselves addressed the _rouleurs_ for workingmen, when in
need of any.
This fact gave the _compagnonnages_ a control over the supply of labor.
They could withhold labor from a master who did not comply with their
demands. They could direct their members into other towns of the _Tour_
if necessary, as everywhere the _compagnons_ would find friends and
protection. They could, therefore, organize strikes and boycott a master
or workshop for long periods of time. In fact, by these methods the
_compagnonnages_ struggled for higher wages and better conditions of
employment as far back as the sixteenth century. During the Great
Revolution the _compagnonnages_ existed in twenty-seven trades and
directed the strike-movement described above. They attained the height
of their development during the first quarter of the nineteenth century
when they were the only effective workingmen's organizations exerting an
influence in the economic struggles of the time.
The _compagnonnages_ persisted in several trades during the larger part
of the nineteenth century. After 1830, however, their influence
declined. The new industrial conditions reduced the significance of the
personal skill of the workingmen, shifted the boundaries of the ancient
trades, and entirely transformed most of them. The rapid development of
the modern means of communication made the _tour de France_ in its old
form an anachronism. The spread of democratic and secular ideas brought
the medieval usages and ideas of the _compagnonnages_ into disrepute and
ridicule. Several attempts to reform the _compagnonnages_ and to bring
them into harmony with the new conditions of life were made by members
of the organization, but with no results.[17]
[17] On the _compagnonnage_ see, J. Connay, _Le Compagnonnage_, 1909; E.
Martin St. Leon, _Le Compagnonnage_, 1901; Agricol Perdiguier, _Le Livre
du Compagnonnage_, 1841.
While the _compagnonnages_ were reconstituting themselves during the
Consulate and the First Empire, another form of organization began to
develop among the workingmen. This was the friendly or benevolent
society for mutual aid especially in cases of sickness, accident or
death. Several such societies had existed before the Revolution and the
law Le Chapelier was directed also against them. "It is the business of
the nation," was the opinion of Le Chapelier, accepted by the
Constituent Assembly, "it is the business of the public officials in the
name of the nation to furnish employment to those in need of it and
assistance to the infirm".[18] Friendly societies, however, continued to
form themselves during the nineteenth century. They were formed
generally along trade lines, embracing members of the same trade. In a
general way the government did not hinder their development.
[18] _Les Assoc. Profess._, vol. i, p. 193.
Mrs. Beatrice Webb and Mr. Sidney Webb have shown that a friendly
society has often been the nucleus of a trade union in England. In
France the friendly societies for a long time played the part of trade
unions. The charge of promoting strikes and of interfering with
industrial matters was often brought against them.[19] There were 132
such trade organizations in Paris in 1823 with 11,000 members, and their
numbers increased during the following years.
[19] _Ibid._, p. 199.
The form of organization called into being by the new economic
conditions was the _société de résistance_, an organization primarily
designed for the purpose of exercising control over conditions of
employment. These societies of resistance assumed various names. They
usually had no benefit features or passed them over lightly in their
statutes. They emphasized the purpose of obtaining collective contracts,
scales of wages, and general improvements in conditions of employment.
These societies were all secret, but free from the religious and
ceremonial characteristics of the _compagnonnages_.
One of the most famous of these societies in the history of the French
working-class was the _Devoir Mutuel_, founded by the weavers of Lyons,
in 1823. This society directed the famous strikes of the weavers in 1831
and 1834. Its aim, as formulated in its statutes, was: first, to
practice the principles of equity; second, to unite the weavers' efforts
in order to obtain a reasonable wage for their labor; third, to do away
with the abuses of the factory, and to bring about other improvements in
"the moral and physical condition" of its members. The society had 3,000
members in 1833.[20]
[20] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i. pp. 201-203.
In 1833 the smelters of copper in Paris formed themselves into a society
which was to help them in their resistance against employers. Two francs
a day was to be paid to every member who lost employment because he did
not consent to an unjust reduction in his wages or for any other reason
which might be regarded as having in view the support of the trade; in
other cases of unemployment, no benefit was allowed, in view of the fact
that in ordinary times the smelters were seldom idle.[21] The society
was open to all smelters, without any limitation of age; it was
administered by a council assisted by a commission of representatives
from the shops, elected by the members of the society of each shop. The
society was soon deprived, however, of its combative character by the
government.[22]
[21] _Ibid._, vol. i, p. 204.
[22] _Les Associations Professionelles_, vol. i, p. 204.
A strong society of resistance was organized by the printers of Paris in
1839. Though secret, it gained the adherence of a large part of the
trade. In 1848 it had 1,200 members--half of all the printers at that
time in Paris. It was administered by a committee. Through its
initiative a mixed commission of employers and workingmen was organized
which adopted a general scale of wages. This commission also acted as a
board of mediation and conciliation in disputes between employers and
workingmen.[23]
[23] _Ibid._, pp. 205-6.
The _compagnonnages_, _mutualités_ and resistance-societies aimed partly
or exclusively to better conditions of employment by exerting pressure
upon employers. These societies reveal the efforts that were being made
by workingmen to adjust themselves to the economic conditions of the
time. But after 1830, other ideas began to find adherents among the
French workingmen; namely, the ideas of opposition to the entire
economic régime based on private property and the idea of substituting
for this system a new industrial organization.
The history of the socialist movement of France before 1848 can not here
be entered into. It has been written and rewritten and is more or less
known. For the purposes of this study, it is only necessary to point out
that during this period, and particularly during the revolutionary
period of 1848, the idea of co-operation, as a means of abolishing the
wage system, made a deep impression upon the minds of French
workingmen.[24]
[24] On the history of French socialism: R. T. Ely, _French and German
Socialism_ (1878); Th. Kirkup, _A History of Socialism_ (1906); G.
Isambert, _Les Idées Socialistes en France_ (1905); P. Louis, _Histoire
du Socialisme Français_ (1901).
The idea of co-operation had been propagated before 1848 by the
Saint-Simonists and Fourierists, and particularly by Buchez who had
outlined a clear plan of co-operation in his paper _L'Européen_ in
1831-2. Similar ideas were advanced during the forties by a group of
workingmen who published _L'Atelier_. But only with the outbreak of the
Revolution of 1848, and under the influence of Louis Blanc, did the
co-operative idea really become popular with the workingmen. Between
1848 and 1850 the enthusiasm for co-operative societies was great, and a
considerable number of them were formed. On July 6, 1848, the
Constituent Assembly voted a loan of 3,000,000 francs for co-operative
societies, and this sum was divided among 26 societies in Paris and 36
in the provinces.[25] But the number of those founded without assistance
was much greater; about 300 in Paris and many more in the provinces. Of
these societies most perished within a short time while the rest were
dissolved by the administration of Napoleon III after the _coup-d'état_
of 1851.[26]
[25] Georges Renard, _La République de 1848_.
[26] Albert Thomas, _Le Second Empire_ (Paris, 1907).
The Revolution of 1848 was an important moment in the history of the
French working-class. Though the socialist idea of the "Organization of
Work" (_L'Organisation du Travail_) which was so prominent during the
Revolution passed into history after the days of June, it left an
impression upon the minds of French workingmen. The belief in a possible
social transformation became a tradition with them. Besides, the
Revolution gave a strong impulse to purely trade organizations such as
the _sociétés de résistance_. Before 1848 they had existed in a few
trades only. The period of the Revolution witnessed the formation of a
large number of them in various trades and strengthened the tendency
towards organization which had manifested itself before.
During the first decade of the Second Empire all workingmen's
organizations were persecuted; most of them perished; others went again
into secrecy or disguised themselves as mutual aid societies.
With the advent of the second decade of the Empire the labor movement
acquired an amplitude it had never had before. Its main characteristic
during this period was a decided effort to break the legal barriers in
its way and to come out into the open. The workingmen's chief demands
were the abolition of the law on coalitions and the right to organize.
The workingmen were given an opportunity to express their views and
sentiments on occasions of National and International Exhibitions. It
had become a custom in France to send delegations of workingmen to such
exhibitions. In 1849 the Chamber of Commerce of Lyons sent a delegation
of workingmen to the National Exhibition in Paris. In 1851 the
municipality of Paris sent some workingmen to the International
Exhibition in London. A delegation was sent again to London in 1862 and
to Paris in 1867.
The workingmen-delegates published reports in which they formulated
their views on the condition of their respective trades and expressed
their demands and aspirations. These reports have been called the
_cahiers_ of the working-class. The authors of the reports--workingmen
themselves, elected by large numbers of workingmen--were
representatives in the true sense of the term and voiced the sentiments
and ideas of a large part of the French workingmen of their time.
The reports published by the delegates of 1862 contain a persistent
demand for freedom to combine and to organize. The refrain of all the
reports is: "Isolation kills us".[27] The trade unions of England made a
deep impression on the French delegates and strengthened their
conviction of the necessity of organization. "Of 53 reports emanating
from 183 delegates of Paris, 38 by 145 delegates express the desire that
syndical chambers be organized in their trades."[27]
[27] G. Weill, _op. cit._, pp. 63-65.
The government of the Empire, which hoped to interest the workingmen in
its existence, gave way before their persistent demands. In 1864, in
consequence of a strike of Parisian printers which attracted much public
attention, the old law on coalitions was abolished and the right to
strike granted.
The right to strike, however, was bound up with certain other rights
which the French workingmen were still denied. Unless the latter had the
right to assemble and to organize, they could profit but little by the
new law on coalitions. Besides, the French workingmen were generally
averse to strikes. The reports of 1862, though demanding the freedom of
coalition, declared that it was not the intention of the workingmen to
make strikes their habitual procedure. The delegates of 1867, who formed
a commission which met in Paris for two years, discussing all the
economic problems that interested the workingmen of the time, were of
the same opinion. A special session of the Commission was devoted to the
consideration of the means by which strikes might be avoided. All agreed
that, as one of the delegates expressed it, strikes were "the misery of
the workingmen and the ruin of the employer"[28] and should be resorted
to only in cases of absolute necessity. What the delegates demanded was
the right to organize and to form "syndical chambers". They hoped that
with the help of these organizations, they would avoid strikes and
improve their economic condition.
[28] _Commission Ouvrière de 1867, Recueil des Procés-Verbaux_, vol. i,
p. 28.
In the beginning of 1868, a number of delegates to the Exhibition of
1867 were received by the Minister of Agriculture, Commerce and Public
Works to present their views and demands. The vice-president of the
Commission, M. Parent, indicated clearly what the workingmen meant by
"syndical chambers" in the following words:
We all agree to proceed by way of conciliation, but we all have
also recognized the necessity of guaranteeing our rights by a
serious organization which should give the workingmen the
possibility of entering easily and without fear into agreement with
the employers.... It is thus in order to avoid strikes,
guaranteeing at the same time the wages of the workingmen, that the
delegates of 1867 solicit the authorization to establish syndicats
in each trade in order to counter-balance the formidable
organization of the syndical chambers of the merchants and
manufacturers.... The workingmen's syndical chambers, composed of
syndics elected by the votes of the workingmen of their trade,
would have an important rôle to fulfil. Besides the competent
experts which they could always furnish for the cases subject to
the jurisdiction of the prud'hommes, for justices of the peace and
for the tribunals of Commerce, they could furnish arbiters for
those conflicts which have not for their cause an increase in
wages. Such are: the regulations of the workshops, the use of
health-endangering materials, the bad conditions of the machinery
and of the factory which affect the health of the workingmen and
often endanger their lives, the protection of the inventions made
by workingmen, the organization of mutual and professional
education, which cannot be entirely instituted without the help of
the men of the workshop, etc.[29]
[29] Lagardelle, _Évolution des Syndicats_, pp. 218-9.
On the 30th of March, 1868, the Minister of Commerce and Public Works
announced that without modifying the law on coalitions, the government
would henceforth tolerate workingmen's organizations on the same grounds
on which it had heretofore tolerated the organizations of employers.
With this act began the period of toleration which lasted down to 1884,
when the workingmen's organizations were brought under the protection of
a special law.
The declaration of toleration gave free scope to the workingmen to form
their syndical chambers. Some syndicats had been openly formed before.
In 1867, the shoemakers had formed a society--the first to bear the name
of syndicat--which had openly declared that it would support members on
strike and would try to defend and to raise wages. But only after the
declaration of the government in 1868 did these societies begin to
increase in numbers.
While organizing for resistance, the workingmen during this period,
however, placed their main hopes in co-operation; the co-operative
society of production was to them the only means of solving the labor
question. As one of the delegates to the Workingmen's Commission
of 1867 put it: "Salvation is in association" (_Le salut c'est
l'association_).[30] The main function of the syndical chamber was to
promote the organization of co-operative societies.
[30] _Commission Ouvrière de 1867_, vol. i, p. 28.
The revival of enthusiasm for co-operative societies began in 1863. Men
of different political and economic views helped the movement. It found
supporters in liberal economists, like M. Say and M. Walras; it was
seconded by Proudhon and his followers, while a number of communists
took an active part in it. Profiting by the experience of 1848-50, the
workingmen now adopted a new plan. The co-operative society of
production was to be the crowning part of the work, resting upon a
foundation of several other organizations. First the members of one and
the same trade were to form a syndical chamber of their trade. The
syndical chamber was to encourage the creation of a "society of credit
and savings" which should have for its aim the collection of funds by
regular dues paid by the members. Such "societies of credit and savings"
began to develop after 1860, and they were considered very important;
not only because they provided the funds, but also and mainly because
they helped the members to become acquainted with one another and to
eliminate the inefficient. With a society of credit in existence, it was
deemed necessary to create a co-operative of consumption. The productive
co-operative society was to complete this series of organizations which,
supporting one another, were to give stability to the entire structure.
The plan was seldom carried out in full. Co-operatives of production
were formed without any such elaborate preparation as outlined above.
However, many "societies of credit and saving" were formed. In 1863
there were 200 of them in Paris; and in September, 1863, a central bank,
_La Société du Credit au Travail_ was organized. Similar central banks
were formed in Lyons, Marseilles, Lille and other large cities.
In Paris the _Credit au Travail_ became the center of the co-operative
movement between 1863 and 1868. It subsidized successively
_L'Association_ (Nov., 1864-July, 1866) and _La Co-opération_ (Sept.,
1866-Feb., 1867)--magazines devoted to the spread of co-operative ideas.
It gave advice and information for forming co-operatives. Most of the
co-operative enterprises of the period were planned and first elaborated
in the councils of this society. Finally it furnished the co-operatives
with credit. Its business done in 1866 amounted to 10½ million
francs.[31]
[31] P. Hubert-Valleroux, _La Co-opération_ (Paris, 1904), pp. 14-17.
In 1868 the co-operative movement, after several years of development,
suffered a terrible blow. On November 2nd, the _Credit au Travail_
became bankrupt; it had immobilized its capital, and had given out loans
for too long periods, while some of the other loans were not reimbursed.
The bank had to suspend payment and was closed. The disaster for the
co-operative movement was complete. The _Credit au Travail_ seemed to
incarnate the co-operative movement; "and its failure made many think
that the co-operative institution had no future".[32]
[32] P. Hubert-Valleroux, _op. cit._, p. 16.
The failure of the co-operative movement turned the efforts of the
workingmen into other channels. They now began to join the
"International Association of Workingmen" in increased numbers and to
change their ideas and methods.
The "International", as is well known, was formed in 1864 by French and
English workingmen. The French section, during the first years of its
existence, was composed mainly of the followers of Proudhon, known as
_mutuellistes_. The program of the _mutuellistes_ was a peaceful change
in social relations by which the idea of justice--conceived as
reciprocity or mutuality of services--would be realized. The means
advocated were education and the organization of mutual aid societies,
of mutual insurance companies, of syndicats, of co-operative societies
and the like. Much importance was attached to the organization of mutual
credit societies and of popular banks. It was hoped that with the help
of cheap credit the means of production would be put at the disposal of
all and that co-operative societies of production could then be
organized in large numbers. The _Mutuellistes_ emphasized the idea that
the social emancipation of the workingmen must be the work of the
workingmen themselves. They were opposed to state intervention. Their
ideal was a decentralized economic society based upon a new principle of
right--the principle of mutuality--which was "the idea of the
working-class".[33] Their spokesman and master was Proudhon who
formulated the ideas of _mutuellisme_ in his work, _De la Capacité
Politique des Classes Ouvrières_.
[33] P. J. Proudhon, _De la Capacité Politique des Classes Ouvrières_
(Paris, 1865), p. 59.
Between 1864 and 1868, the "International" met with little success in
France. The largest number of adherents obtained by it during this
period was from five to eight hundred. Persecuted by the government
after 1867, it was practically dead in France in 1868.[34] But in 1869
it reappeared with renewed strength under the leadership of men of
collectivist and communist ideas, which were partly a revival and
survival of the ideas of 1848, partly a new development in socialist
thought.
[34] A. Thomas, _Le Second Empire_, p. 332.
One current of communist ideas was represented by the Blanquists.
Blanqui, a life-long conspirator and an ardent republican who had been
the leader of the secret revolutionary societies under the Monarchy of
July, took up his revolutionary activity again during the latter part of
the Second Empire. A republican and revolutionary above everything
else, he had, however, gradually come to formulate in a more precise way
a communistic program, to be realized by his party when by a
revolutionary upheaval it would be carried into power. The Blanquists
denounced the "co-operators" and the "mutuellistes" and called upon the
workingmen to organize into secret societies ready, at a favorable
moment, to seize political power. Towards the end of the Second Empire,
the Blanquists numbered about 2,500 members in Paris, mainly among the
Republican youth.[35]
[35] A. Thomas, _op. cit._, p. 332.
The other current of communist ideas had its fountainhead in the
"International" which Caesar de-Paepe, Marx and Bakounine succeeded in
winning over to their collectivist ideas. The congresses of the
"Association" in Brussels in 1868 and in Bâle in 1869 adopted
resolutions of a collectivist character, and many members of the French
section were won over to the new ideas.[36]
[36] E. E. Fribourg, _L'Association Internationale des Travailleurs_
(Paris, 1871).
The success of the "International" in France in 1869 was the sudden
result of the strike-movement which swept the country during the last
years of the Second Empire. The members of the "International" succeeded
in obtaining financial support for some strikers. This raised the
prestige of the "Association", and a number of syndicats sent in their
collective adhesion. It is estimated that toward the end of 1869 the
"International" had a membership of about 250,000 in France.
These facts had their influence on the French leaders of the
"International". They changed their attitude toward the strike,
declaring it "the means _par excellence_ for the organization of the
revolutionary forces of labor".[37] The idea of the general strike
suggested itself to others.[38] At the Congress of Bâle in 1869, one of
the French delegates advocated the necessity of organizing syndicats for
two reasons: first, because "they are the means of resisting the
exploitation of capital in the present;" and second, because "the
grouping of different trades in the city will form the commune of the
future" ... and then ... "the government will be replaced by federated
councils of syndicats and by a committee of their respective delegates
regulating the relations of labor--this taking the place of
politics."[39]
[37] A. Thomas, _op. cit._, p. 363.
[38] _Ibid._, p. 358.
[39] James Guillaume, _L'Internationale, Documents et Souvenirs_ (Paris,
1905), vol. i, p. 205.
Under the influence of the "International" the syndicats of Paris--there
were about 70 during the years 1868-1870--founded a local federation
under the name of _Chambre Fédérale des sociétés ouvrières de Paris_.
This federation formulated its aim in the following terms:
This agreement has for its object to put into operation the means
recognized as just by the workingmen of all trades for the purpose
of making them the possessors of all the instruments of production
and to lend them money, in order that they may free themselves from
the arbitrariness of the employer and from the exigencies of
capital.... The federation has also the aim of assuring to all
adhering societies on strike the moral and material support of the
other groups by means of loans at the risk of the loaning
societies.[40]
[40] A. Thomas, _op. cit._, p. 352.
These organizations were entirely swept away by the events of 1870-71:
the Franco-Prussian War, the Proclamation of the Republic, and
especially the Commune. After 1871 the workingmen had to begin the work
of organization all over again. But the conquests of the previous period
were not lost. The right to strike was recognized. The policy of
tolerating workingmen's organizations was continued, notwithstanding a
few acts to the contrary. But, above all, the experience of the
workingmen was preserved. The form of organization which they generally
advocated after the Commune was the syndicat. The other forms (_i. e._,
the _Compagnonnages_ and the secret _Société de résistance_) either
disappeared or developed independently along different lines, as the
friendly societies.
In other respects, the continuity of the labor movement after the
Commune with that of the preceding period was no less evident. As will
be seen in the following chapter the problems raised and the solutions
given to them by the French workingmen for some time after the Commune
were directly related to the movement of the Second Empire. The idea of
co-operation, the _mutuellisme_ of Proudhon, and the collectivism of the
"International" reappeared in the labor movement under the Third
Republic.