THE THEORISTS OF REVOLUTIONARY SYNDICALISM
The writers who have contributed to the development of revolutionary
syndicalism may be divided into two groups. One comprises men who, like
Pelloutier, Pouget, Griffuelhes, Delesalle, Niel, Yvetot and others,
either belong to the working-class, or have completely identified
themselves with the workingmen. The other consists of a number of
"intellectuals" who stand outside of the syndicalist movement.
The members of the first group have played the leading part in building
up the syndicalist movement. Pelloutier was secretary of the Federation
of Bourses from 1894 to 1901; Griffuelhes was secretary of the General
Confederation of Labor from 1901 to 1908; Pouget was assistant secretary
of the Confederation and editor of the _Voix du Peuple_ from 1900 to
1908; Yvetot has been one of the secretaries of the Confederation since
1902; Niel was secretary of the General Confederation for a short time
in 1909, and the others now occupy or have occupied prominent places in
the syndicalist organizations.
The close connection of the members of this group with the syndicalist
movement and with the General Confederation of Labor has had its
influence upon their writings. Their ideas have been stimulated by close
observation of the facts of syndicalist life, and the course of their
thought has been determined largely by the struggles of the day. There
is a stronger emphasis in their writings upon methods, upon "direct
action," and upon relations to other existing groups. There is less
speculation and pure theorizing. In other respects the men of this group
differ. They have come from different political groupings: Pouget and
Yvetot, for instance, from the Communist-Anarchists; Griffuelhes from
the Allemanists. They have different views on the relation of
revolutionary syndicalism to other social theories, differences which
will be brought out further on.
The second group of writers, the so-called "intellectuals" outside the
syndicalist movement, have grouped themselves about the monthly _Le
Mouvement Socialiste_, started in 1899 by M. Hubert Lagardelle, a member
of the Socialist Party, and about the weekly _La Guerre Sociale_, of
which Gustave Hervé is editor. _Le Mouvement Socialiste_ was at first a
Socialist monthly review, but accentuated its sympathy for the
syndicalists as time went on, and became an expressly revolutionary
syndicalist organ in 1904. The _Mouvement Socialiste_ counted among its
constant contributors down to 1910 M. Georges Sorel and Edouard Berth.
These three writers, Sorel, Lagardelle, and Berth, have tried to
systematize the ideas of revolutionary syndicalism and to put them on a
philosophical and sociological basis. The most prolific of them and the
one who has been proclaimed "the most profound thinker of the new
school" is M. Georges Sorel.
M. Georges Sorel has written on various subjects. Among the works from
his pen are volumes on Socrates, on _The Historical System of Renan_, on
_The Ruin of the Ancient World_, a number of articles on ethics and on
various other topics. The works that bear on revolutionary syndicalism
which alone can be here considered, are: _L'Avenir Socialiste des
Syndicats_, _La Décomposition du Marxisme_, _Introduction à l'Économie
Moderne_, _Les Illusions du Progrès_, _Réflexions sur la Violence_, and
a number of articles in various periodicals.
The works of M. Sorel on revolutionary syndicalism stretch over a period
of ten to twelve years: _The Socialist Future of the Syndicats_ was
written in 1897; the second edition of his _Reflections on Violence_
appeared in 1910. Within this period of time the thought of M. Sorel has
not only steadily developed in scope but has also changed in many
essential points. It would require a separate study to point out the
changes and their significance. This is out of the question in this
study. The salient points only of M. Sorel's theories will be treated
here, therefore, without consideration of their place in the
intellectual history of their author.
M. Sorel has attached his theories to the ideas of Marx. Revolutionary
syndicalism is to M. Sorel but the revival and further development of
the fundamental ideas of Marx. The "new school" considers itself,
therefore, "neo-Marxist," true to "the spirit" of Marx[154] though
rejecting the current interpretations of Marx and completing the lacunae
which it finds in Marx. This work of revision it considers indispensable
because, on the one hand, Marx was not always "well inspired,"[155] and
often harked back to the past instead of penetrating into the future;
and because, on the other hand, Marx did not know all the facts that
have now become known; Marx knew well the development of the
bourgeoisie, but could not know the development of the labor movement
which has become such a tremendous factor in social life.[156]
[154] G. Sorel, _L'Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats_ (Paris, 1901), p. 3.
[155] G. Sorel, _Réflexions sur la Violence_ (Paris, 1910), p. 249.
[156] _Ibid._, p. 246.
The "new school" does not consider itself by any means bound to admire
"the illusions, the faults, the errors of him who has done so much to
elaborate the revolutionary ideas."[157] What it retains of Marx is his
essential and fruitful idea of social evolution, namely, that the
development of each social system furnishes the material conditions for
effective and durable changes in the social relations within which a new
system begins its development.[158] Accordingly, Socialists must drop
all utopian ideas: they must understand that Socialism is to be
developed gradually in the bosom of capitalism itself and is to be
liberated from within capitalistic surroundings only when the time is
ripe.
[157] G. Sorel, _Réflexions sur la Violence_ (Paris, 1910), p. 249.
[158] G. Sorel, _L'Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats_, pp. 3-4.
The ripening of socialism within capitalism does not mean merely
technical development. This is indispensable of course: socialism can be
only an economic system based on highly developed and continually
progressing productive forces; but this is one aspect of the case only.
The other, a no less if not more important aspect, is the development of
new moral forces within the old system; that is, the political,
juridical and moral development of the working-class,[159] of that class
which alone can establish a socialist society.
[159] _Ibid._, p. 39.
This was also the idea of Marx: "Marx also saw that the workingmen must
acquire political and juridical capacity before they can triumph."[160]
The revolution which the working-class is pursuing is not a simple
change in the personnel or in the form of the government; it is a
complete overthrow of the "traditional State" which is to be replaced by
the workingmen's organizations. Such a complete transformation
presupposes "high moral culture" in the workingmen and a capacity for
directing the economic functions of society. The social revolution will
thus come only when the workingmen are "ready" for it, that is, when
they feel that they can assume the direction of society. The "moral"
education of the working-class, therefore, is the essential thing;
Socialism will not have to "organize labor", because capitalism will
have accomplished this work before. But in order that the working-class
should be able to behave like "free men" in the "workshop created by
capitalism",[161] they must have developed the necessary capacities.
Socialism, therefore, reduces itself "to the revolutionary
apprenticeship"[162] of the workingmen; "to teaching the workingmen to
will, to instructing them by action, and to revealing to them their
proper capacities; such is the whole secret of the socialist education
of the people."[163]
[160] _Ibid._, p. 4.
[161] G. Sorel, _Réflexions sur la Violence_, pp. 289-5.
[162] _Ibid._, p. 42.
[163] G. Sorel, _Preface_ to Pelloutier's _Histoire des Bourses du
Travail_.
The workingmen can find the moral training necessary for the triumph of
socialism only in the syndicats and in the experience of syndical life.
The syndicats develop the administrative and organizing capacities of
the workingmen. In the syndicats the workingmen learn to do their
business themselves and to reject the dictatorship of "intellectuals"
who have conquered the field of politics which they have made to serve
their ambitions.
The greatest organizing and educating force created by the syndicalist
movement is the idea of the general strike. The general strike means a
complete and "absolute" revolution. It is the idea of a decisive battle
between the bourgeoisie and the working-class assuring the triumph of
the latter. This idea is a "social myth" and hence its tremendous
historic force.
"Social myths" always arise during great social movements. The men who
participate in great social movements, represent to themselves their
actions in the near future in the form of images of battles assuring the
triumph of their cause. These images are "myths." The images of the
early Christians on the coming of Christ and on the ruin of the pagan
world are an illustration of a "social myth." The period of the
Reformation saw the rise of "social myths," because the conditions were
such as to make it necessary for the "men of heart" who were inspired by
"the will of deliverance" to create "images" which satisfying their
"sentiments of struggle" kept up their zeal and their devotion.
The "social myth" presupposes a social group which harbors an intense
desire of deliverance, which feels all the difficulties in its way and
which finds deep satisfaction in picturing to itself its future
struggles and future triumph. Such images must not and cannot be
analyzed like a thing; they must be taken _en bloc_, and it is
particularly necessary to avoid comparing the real historic facts with
the representations which were in circulation before the facts took
place.
"Myths" are indispensable for a revolutionary movement; they concentrate
the force of the rising class and intensify it to the point of action.
No myth can possibly be free from utopian conceptions. But the utopian
elements are not essential. The essentials are the hope back of the
myth, the ideal strengthened by the myth, and the impatience of
deliverance embodied in the myth.
The general strike is the "social myth" of the working-class longing for
emancipation. It is the expression of the convictions of the
working-class "in the language of movement," the supreme concentration
of the desires, the hopes, and the ideals of the working-class. Its
importance for the future of Socialism, therefore, is paramount. The
idea of the general strike keeps alive and fortifies in the workingmen
their class-consciousness and revolutionary feelings. Every strike on
account of it assumes the character of a skirmish before the great
decisive battle which is to come. Owing to the general strike idea,
"socialism remains ever young, the attempts made to realize social peace
seem childish, the desertion of comrades who run over into the ranks of
the bourgeoisie, far from discouraging the masses, excites them still
more to revolt; in a word, the rupture (between bourgeoisie and
working-class) is never in danger of disappearing."[164]
[164] G. Sorel, _Réflexions sur la Violence_, p. 179.
This rupture is an indispensable condition of Socialism. Socialism
cannot be the continuation of democracy; it must be, if it can be at
all, a totally "new culture" built upon ideas and institutions totally
different from the ideas and from the institutions of democracy.
Socialism must have its own economic, judicial, political and moral
institutions evolved by the working-class independently from those of
the bourgeoisie, and not in imitation of the latter.
Sorel is bitter in his criticism of democracy; it is, in his view, the
régime _par excellence_ in which men are governed "by the magical power
of high-sounding words rather than by ideas; by formulas rather than by
reasons; by dogmas the origin of which nobody cares to find out, rather
than by doctrines based on observation."[165] It is the kingdom of the
professionals of politics, over whom the people can have no control.
Sorel thinks that even the spread of knowledge does not render the
masses more capable of choosing and of supervising their so-called
representatives and that the further society advances in the path of
democracy, the less effective does control by the people become.[166]
The whole system of democracy, in the opinion of M. Sorel, is based on
the "fiction of the general will" and is maintained by a mechanism
(campaigning, elections, etc.) which can result only in demoralization.
It delivers the country into the hands of "charlatans," of
office-seekers and of idle talkers who may assume the air of great men,
but who are never fit for their task.
[165] G. Sorel, _Illusions du Progrès_ (Paris, 1911), p. 10.
[166] G. Sorel, _Illusions du Progrès_, p. 59.
The working-class must, therefore, break entirely with democracy and
evolve from within itself its own ideas and original institutions. This
complete rupture between the ideas of the past and those of the future
contradicts the conception of progress now in vogue. But the conception
of progress is rather a deception than a conception. As held to-day, it
is full of illusions, of errors, and of misconceptions. The idea of
progress is characteristic of democracy and is cherished by the
bourgeois classes because it permits them to enjoy their privileges in
peace. Lulled by the optimistic illusion that everything is for the best
in this best of all worlds, the privileged classes can peacefully and
hopefully pass by the misery and the disorders of existing society. This
conception of progress, like all other ideas of democracy, was evolved
by the rising middle classes of the eighteenth century, mainly by the
functionaries of royalty who furnished the theoretical guides of the
Revolution. But, in truth, the only real progress is the development of
industrial technique[167]--the constant invention of machinery and the
increase of productive forces. The latter create the material
conditions out of which a new culture arises, completely breaking with
the culture of the past.
[167] _Ibid._, p. 276.
One of the factors promoting the development of productive forces is
"proletarian violence." This violence is not to be thought of after the
model of the "Reign of Terror" which was the creation of the
bourgeoisie. "Proletarian violence" does not mean that there should be a
"great development of brutality" or that "blood should be shed in
torrents" (_versé à flots_).[168] It means that the workingmen in their
struggle must manifest their force so as to intimidate the employers; it
means that "the social conflicts must assume the character of pure
struggles similar to those of armies in a campaign."[169] Such violence
will show the capitalist class that all their efforts to establish
social peace are useless; the capitalists will then turn to their
economic interests exclusively; the type of a forceful, energetic
"captain of industry" will be the result, and all the possibilities of
capitalism will be developed.
[168] G. Sorel, _Réflexions sur la Violence_, pp. 256-7.
[169] _Ibid._, p. 150.
On the other hand, violence stimulates ever anew the class-feelings of
the workingmen and their sentiments of the sublime mission which history
has imposed upon them. It is necessary that the revolutionary
syndicalists should feel that they are fulfiling the great and sublime
mission of renovating the world; this is their only compensation for all
their struggles and sufferings. The feelings of sublimity and enthusiasm
have disappeared from the bourgeois-world, and their absence has
contributed to the decadence of the bourgeoisie. The working-class is
again introducing these feelings by incorporating them in the idea of
the general strike, and is, therefore, making possible a moral
rejuvenation of the world.
All these ideas may seem tinged with pessimism. But "nothing very great
(_très haut_) has been accomplished in this world" without
pessimism.[170] Pessimism is a "metaphysics of morals" rather than a
theory of the world; it is a conception of "a march towards deliverance"
and presupposes an experimental knowledge of the obstacles in the way of
our imaginings or in other words "a sentiment of social determinism" and
a feeling of our human weakness.[171] The pessimist "regards social
conditions as forming a system enchained by an iron law, the necessity
of which must be submitted to as it is given _en bloc_, and which can
disappear only after a catastrophe involving the whole."[172] This
catastrophic character the general strike has and must have, if it is to
retain its profound significance.
[170] G. Sorel, _Réflexions sur la Violence_, p. 8.
[171] _Ibid._, p. 12.
[172] _Ibid._, p. 13.
The catastrophic character of the general strike enhances its moral
value. The workingmen are stimulated by it to prepare themselves for the
final combat by a moral effort over themselves. But only in such unique
moments of life when "we make an effort to create a new man within
ourselves" "do we take possession of ourselves" and become free in the
Bergsonian sense of the term. The general strike, therefore, raises
socialism to the rôle of the greatest moral factor of our time.
Thus, M. Sorel having started out with Marx winds up with Bergson. The
attempt to connect his views with the philosophy of Bergson has been
made by M. Sorel in all his later works. But all along M. Sorel claims
to be "true to the spirit of Marx" and tries to prove this by various
quotations from the works of Marx. It is doubtful, however, whether
there is an affinity between the "spirit" of Marx and that of Professor
Bergson. It appears rather that M. Sorel has tacitly assumed this
affinity because he interprets the "spirit" of Marx in a peculiar and
arbitrary way.
Without any pretense of doing full justice to the subject, three
essential points may be indicated which perhaps sufficiently prove that
"neo-Marxism" has drifted so far away from Marx as to lose touch with
his "spirit." These three points bear upon the very kernel of Marxism:
its conception of determinism, its intellectualism, and its emphasis on
the technical factors of social evolution.
The Marxian conception of social determinism is well known. The social
process was thought of by Marx as rigidly "necessary," as an organic,
almost as a mechanical process. The impression of social necessity one
gets in reading Marx is so strong as to convey the feeling of being
carried on by an irresistible process to a definite social end.
In M. Sorel's works, on the contrary, social determinism is a word
merely, the concept back of it is not assimilated. M. Sorel speaks of
the general strike and of Socialism as of possibilities or
probabilities, not of necessities. In reading him, one feels that M.
Sorel himself never felt the irresistible character of the logical
category of necessity.
The difference in the second point follows from the difference in the
first. Marx never doubted the possibility of revealing the secret of the
social process. Trained in the "panlogistic school," Marx always tacitly
assumed that socialism could be scientific, that the procedure of
science could prove the necessity of social evolution going in one
direction and not in any other. It was the glory of having given this
proof which he claimed for himself and which has been claimed for him
by his disciples.
M. Sorel is expressly not "true to the spirit" of Marx in this point.
"Science has no way of foreseeing,"[173] says he. His works are full of
diatribes against the pretention of science to explain everything. He
attributes a large rôle to the unclear, to the subconscious and to the
mystical in all social phenomena. A sentence like the following may
serve to illustrate this point. Says M. Sorel:
[173] G. Sorel, _L'Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats_, p. 54.
Socialism is necessarily a very obscure thing, because it treats of
production--that is, of what is most mysterious in human
activity--and because it proposes to realize a radical
transformation in this region which it is impossible to describe
with the clearness which is found in the superficial regions of the
world. No effort of thought, no progress of knowledge, no
reasonable induction will ever be able to dispel the mystery which
envelops Socialism.[174]
[174] G. Sorel, _Réflexions sur la Violence_, pp. 201-2.
This, according to Sorel, is just what "Marxism has recognized": M.
Sorel, certainly, "knows his Marx."
In the third point, M. Sorel "the revolutionary revisionist," comes very
close to M. Bernstein, "the evolutionary revisionist." The coming of
Socialism is made independent of those technical and economic processes
which Marx so much emphasized. The conceptions of the concentration of
capital, of proletarization, etc., are given up. On the contrary,
Socialism is to be prepared by the "revolutionary apprenticeship" of the
working-class, an apprenticeship to be made in action and under the
influence of a "social myth" created by imagination spurred on by the
subconscious will. There certainly are pronounced voluntaristic elements
in Marx, but this whole conception of M. Sorel seems to attribute to
Marx a "spirit" by no means in harmony with his make-up.
Though claiming to be a disciple of Marx, M. Sorel seems to be more in
harmony with Proudhon whose works he often quotes and whose views,
particularly on morals, he accepts. But besides Proudhon many other
writers have had a considerable influence on M. Sorel. Besides Bergson,
already mentioned, Renan and Nietzsche, to quote but two, have had their
share of influence in many of the ideas expressed by M. Sorel. M. Sorel
has an essentially mobile mind quick to catch an idea and to give it a
somewhat new and original turn. He lacks the ability of systematizing
his views and his reader must have considerable patience with him. The
systematic way in which his views have been given in this chapter is
rather misleading; M. Sorel himself proceeds in a quite different way;
he deals with an idea for a while but is led away into digression after
digression, to pick up the thread of his previous argument tens of pages
later.
Lack of system makes it easier for contradictions to live together
without detection. It also predisposes a writer to assimilate and to
transform any ideas he may meet. With Sorel this is evidently so, though
his main claim is "profundity." The pages of his work bristle with the
word _approfondir_ which is so often repeated that it makes the poor
reader dizzy. The disappointment is sharp, because M. Sorel soon loses
the thread of his thought before having had time to fathom his subject.
His works, however, savor of freshness of thought and of originality.
Quite a different writer is M. Lagardelle. His exposition is regular,
systematic, fluent, and clear. While Sorel is mainly interested in the
philosophical aspect of his problems and has been called, probably
sarcastically, by M. Jaurès "the metaphysician of revolutionary
syndicalism," M. Lagardelle considers the economic and political aspects
of the new doctrine. His works need not be dwelt upon because his ideas
do not differ essentially from those of M. Sorel. Two points, however,
may be singled out; M. Lagardelle, though criticizing democracy, is
careful to point out that Socialism has been made possible by democracy
and that no return to ancient political forms is desired; secondly, he
allows a place for the political [socialist] party in the general social
system; its rôle is to attend to those problems which are not entirely
included within the domain of industrial activities.[175]
[175] H. Lagardelle, _Le Socialisme Ouvrier_ (Paris, 1911).
While the "Mouvement Socialiste" devoted its attention mainly to the
philosophical and sociological aspects of syndicalism, the weekly _La
Guerre Sociale_ took up questions of policy and method, particularly the
questions of anti-militarism and anti-patriotism. Gustave Hervé, the
editor of the paper, attracted widespread attention by his attacks on
the army and on the idea of patriotism, and became the _enfant terrible_
of the French socialist movement because of his violent utterances on
these questions. On other questions of method, M. Hervé was no less
violent being a disciple of the Blanquists who believed in the efficacy
of all revolutionary methods including the general strike. However, the
theoretical contributions of M. Hervé to the philosophy of the movement
are slight.
Now, what are the relations of the two groups of writers described in
this chapter and what part has each played in the history of the
movement? These questions must be carefully considered if a correct
understanding of revolutionary syndicalism is desired.
The view which prevailed outside of France is that M. Sorel and his
disciples "created" the theory of revolutionary socialism in opposition
to the parliamentary socialists, and that they have been able to impress
their ideas upon a larger or smaller portion of the organized French
workingmen. This view was first presented by Professor W. Sombart in his
well-known work on _Socialism and the Social Movement_, and has made its
way into other writings on revolutionary syndicalism. M. Sorel is often
spoken of as the "leader" of the revolutionary syndicalists, and the
whole movement is regarded as a form of Marxian revisionism.
This view, however, is a "myth" and should be discarded. French writers
who have studied the social movement of their country and who are
competent judges have tried to dispel the error that has gotten
abroad.[176] The theorists of the _Mouvement Socialiste_ themselves have
repeatedly declined the "honor" which error has conferred upon them. M.
Lagardelle has reiterated time and again that revolutionary syndicalism
was born of the experience of the labor movement and worked out by the
workingmen themselves. M. Sorel has said that he learned more from the
syndicalist workingmen than they could learn from him. And in an article
reviewing the book of Professor Sombart, M. Berth has insisted that
Professor Sombart was in error. "If we had any part," wrote he, "it was
the simple part of interpreters, of translators, of glossers; we have
served as spokesmen, that's all; but it is necessary to avoid reducing
to a few propositions of a school, a movement which is so essentially
working-class and the leading ideas of which, such as direct action and
the general strike, are so specifically of a working-class
character."[177]
[176] See articles of Lagardelle, G. Weil and Cornelissen in the _Archiv
für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik_, 1907-1910.
[177] _Le Mouvement Socialiste_ (May, 1908), p. 390.
This must not be taken as over-modesty on the part of "intellectuals"
who are careful not to pose as leaders or as inspirers. The facts are
there to prove the statements of M. Lagardelle and of M. Sorel. The idea
of the general strike was elaborated by workingmen-members of the
various committees on the general strike. The idea of "direct action,"
as has been shown, found its defenders in the first Congresses of the
General Confederation of Labor. The theory of the social rôle of the
syndicat was formulated by Pelloutier and by other members of the
"Federation of Bourses" before M. Sorel wrote his little book on _The
Socialist Future of the Syndicats_.
Even the statement of M. Berth must be somewhat modified. The theorists
of the _Mouvement Socialiste_ have never by any means been the
authorized "spokesmen" of the revolutionary syndicalists of the General
Confederation. They were no more than a group of writers who, watching
the syndicalist movement from the outside, were stimulated by it to
their reflections and ideas. They thought they found in the syndicalist
movement "a truly original force capable of refreshing the socialist
conception", and they formulated their ideas on the subject. They never
took any part in the movement, and could not feel themselves its
representatives.
What then was their influence? In general, the same as that of other
socialist writers. They were and are read by the French workingmen just
as Kropotkin, Jaurès, Proudhon and other contemporary or former
socialist and anarchist writers, and as many non-socialist writers are.
Naturally, some workingmen came more under their influence, than under
that of others; and such workingmen may be disposed to look upon them as
their theoretical guides and leaders.
But even the latter interpretation is by no means applicable to all the
theories of M. Sorel, for the main ideas of Sorel seem fundamentally
incapable of inspiring a movement of large masses. The theory of the
"social myth" may be original and attractive, but if accepted by the
workingmen could not inspire them to action. If "images of battles" are
important for the "rising classes" as an impelling force, they can be so
only so long as they are naïvely and fully believed in. The worm of
reflection must not touch them. The "men longing for deliverance" must
believe that the future will be just as they picture it, otherwise their
enthusiasm for these pictures would find no nourishment. Should they
come to realize the "utopian" and "mythical" character of their
constructions they would abandon them.
The pessimistic basis of M. Sorel's _Weltanschauung_ may appeal to
literary men, to students of philosophy and to individuals longing for a
moral theory. It can not be assimilated by a mass "moving toward
emancipation." When one reads the original documents of the syndicalist
movement, he is struck, on the contrary, by the powerful torrent of
optimism by which the movement is carried along. Only a strong belief in
a "speedy emancipation" created the enthusiasm for the idea of the
general strike. There may be a subconscious pessimism back of this
optimism, but its appearance in the field of clear consciousness would
have been destructive for the movement.
It is, therefore, quite natural that the writers representing the
General Confederation of Labor who address the workingmen directly do
not reproduce these theories of M. Sorel. As has been indicated already,
their writings bear a different stamp. And if among these writers some,
as for instance M. Griffuelhes, seem to have come more under the
influence of the group _Le Mouvement Socialiste_, the rest occupy an
independent position even from the theoretical point of view.
How little M. Sorel could have been the "leader" of the revolutionary
syndicalist movement may be illustrated by the following comparison. At
the Congress of Lyons in 1901 the secretary of the General Confederation
of Labor, M. Guérard, wrote, as we have seen, that the Confederation is
destined to transform society. In the same year, M. Sorel, in his
preface to Pelloutier's _Histoire des Bourses du Travail_, wrote: "The
Confederation of Labor appears to me to be destined to become an
officious Council of Labor, and an academy of proletarian ideas, which
will present its wishes to the government, as the large agricultural
societies do." The history of the General Confederation of Labor since
1902, to be considered in the following chapter, will show that M. Sorel
missed the point too far to be able to claim the title of "leader" whose
function, presumably, is to point out the way and not to acknowledge it,
after it has once been taken.
It is necessary to bear all this in mind in order to grasp the real
character of revolutionary syndicalism. M. Sorel has recently renounced
his revolutionary syndicalist ideas. In December, 1910, he wrote to the
Italian revolutionary syndicalists who invited him to their Congress at
Boulogne:
It seems to the author [of the _Reflections on Violence_] that
syndicalism has not realized what was expected from it. Many hope
that the future will correct the evils of the present hour; but the
author feels himself too old to live in distant hopes; and he has
decided to employ the remaining years of his life in the deepening
(_approfondir_) of other questions which keenly interest the
cultivated youth of France.[178]
[178] _Le Mouvement Socialiste_ (March, 1911), pp. 184-5.
Previous to that, M. Sorel and M. Berth had both promised collaboration
in a so-called neo-monarchist monthly, _La Cité Française_, which,
however, did not see the light. This probably seemed to them natural in
view of their opposition to democracy. But under the political
conditions of France such an act could not but shock the workingmen who
may criticise democracy but who are bitterly opposed to everything
connected with the _ancien régime_. This act of M. Sorel and M. Berth
weakened the group of _Le Mouvement Socialiste_ which, however, is still
published by M. Lagardelle, though with less force and _éclat_ than
before. The act of M. Sorel, however, could have no perceptible
significance for the revolutionary syndicalist movement. The latter is
led by other leaders and is determined in its march by other influences.
The revolutionary syndicalist ideas embodied in the movement represented
by the General Confederation of Labor were evolved, as has been shown,
in the syndicalist organizations of France. The Anarchists entering the
syndicats largely contributed to the revolutionary turn which the
syndicats took. Their influence, hailed by some, deplored by others, is
recognized by all. The Anarchists themselves often speak as if they
"created" the entire movement, though this is an exaggeration. The rôle
of the Allemanists has been considerable, as was shown in the preceding
chapters. And the more definite formulation of revolutionary
syndicalist ideas in the period of "Millerandism" was the work of
revolutionary socialist workingmen of all brands--Allemanists,
Anarchists, Blanquists and others.
This clears up the question of the relation of revolutionary syndicalism
to other social theories. The theorists of the _Mouvement Socialiste_
have proclaimed revolutionary syndicalism as a new social theory. They
have been very persistent in trying to delimit their theoretical
dominion from parliamentary socialism on the one hand, and from
Anarchism on the other. From the latter particularly they wished to be
separated, feeling as they did how dangerously close they came to it.
Many workingmen have accepted this view, proud to proclaim that they
have evolved a theory of their own--the theory of the working-class.
Others, however, have taken the correct point of view. They see that the
main ideas of revolutionary syndicalism cannot be said to be new. They
may all be found in the old "International Association of Workingmen,"
and especially in the writings of the Bakounist or federalist wing of
that Association. If not the terms, the ideas on direct action, on the
general strike, on the social rôle of the syndicat, and on the future
"economic federalism" may all be found there more or less clearly
stated.[179]
[179] J. Guillaume, _L'Internationale_, vols. i-iii; also Report of 7th
Congress of "International" in Brussels in 1874.
Revolutionary syndicalism appears then, from this point of view not as a
new theory, but as a return to the old theories of the "International"
in which the combined influence of Proudhon, Marx and Bakounin
manifested itself. The formulation of revolutionary syndicalism,
however, is not to any great degree a conscious return to old ideas,
though this conscious factor had its part; Pelloutier, for instance,
was expressly guided by the conceptions of Proudhon and Bakounin.
References to the "International" are also frequent in the discussions
of the Congresses of the General Confederation. The more important
factors, however, were the conditions of the French syndical movement
itself. The workingmen of different socialist groups meeting on the
common ground of the syndicat had to attenuate their differences and to
emphasize their common points. Thus, by a process of elimination and of
mutual influence a common stock of ideas was elaborated which, absorbing
the quintessence of all socialist theories, became what is known as
revolutionary syndicalism. Its similarity to the ideas of the
"International" is partly due to the fact that in the "International"
similar conditions existed.
Mainly worked out in the practice of the syndicalist movement, the ideas
of revolutionary syndicalism are also mainly determined in their further
evolution by this practice. The ideas, therefore, must be judged in
connection with the conditions in which they developed. These conditions
will be further described in the following chapters.