Part 4 (1/2)

[57] John Labusquiere, _La Troisieme Republique_ (Paris), p. 257.

The socialists, on the contrary, called upon the workingmen to partic.i.p.ate in the parliamentary life of the country. Political abstention, they a.s.serted, is neither helpful nor possible.[58] The workingman believes in using his right to vote, and to ignore his att.i.tude of mind is of no avail. Besides, to bring about the transformation of capitalist society into a collectivist society, the political machinery of the State must be used. There is no other way of accomplis.h.i.+ng this task. The State will disappear after the socialist society has been firmly established. But there is an inevitable transitory period when the main economic reforms must be carried out and during which the political power of the State must be in the hands of the socialist party representing the working-cla.s.s. The first act of the Social Revolution, therefore, is to conquer the political power of the State.[59]

[58] _L'egalite_, 30 June, 1880.

[59] In socialist writings this transition period is always spoken of as the ”Dictators.h.i.+p of the Proletariat.”

Within the socialist ranks themselves further divisions soon took place.

In 1882, at the Congress of St. Etienne, the party was split into two parts; one part followed Guesde, the other followed Paul Brousse. The latter part took the name of _Parti ouvrier socialiste revolutionnaire francais_--it dropped the word ”_revolutionnaire_” from its t.i.tle in 1883--and continued to bear as sub-t.i.tle, the name ”Federation of socialist workingmen of France.” Guesde's party took the name of _Parti Ouvrier Francais_.

The _Parti Ouvrier Francais_ claimed to represent the ”revolutionary”

and ”scientific” socialism of Marx. It accepted the familiar doctrines of ”orthodox” Marxism, which it popularized in France. It affirmed its revolutionary character by denying the possibility of reforms in capitalist society and by insisting upon the necessity of seizing the political power of the State in a revolutionary way.

In 1886 J. Guesde wrote as follows:

In the capitalist regime, that is, as long as the means of production and of existence are the exclusive property of a few who work less and less, all rights which the const.i.tutions and the codes may grant to others, to those who concentrate within themselves more and more all muscular and cerebral work, will remain always and inevitably a dead letter. In multiplying reforms, one only multiplies shams (_trompe-l'oeil_).[60]

[60] Jules Guesde, _Le Socialisme au jour le jour_ (Paris, 1899), p.

268.

Inability to carry out real reforms was ascribed to both national legislative bodies and to the munic.i.p.alities. Therefore,

if the party has entered into elections, it is not for the purpose of carving out seats of councillors or deputies, which it leaves to the hemorrhoids of bourgeois of every stamp, but because the electoral period brings under our educational influence that part of the ma.s.ses which in ordinary times is most indifferent to our meetings.[61]

[61] Jules Guesde and Paul Lafargue, _Le Programme du Parti Ouvrier_, 4th edition (Paris, 1897), p. 32.

The munic.i.p.alities conquered were to become just so many centres of recruiting and of struggle. The _Parti Ouvrier_ was to be a ”kind of recruiting and instructing sergeant preparing the ma.s.ses for the final a.s.sault upon the State which is the citadel of capitalist society.”[62]

For only a revolution would permit the productive cla.s.s to seize the political power and to use it for the economic expropriation of capitalistic France and for the nationalization or socialization of the productive forces. Of course no man and no party can call forth a revolution, but when the revolution which the nineteenth century carried within itself arose as a result of national and international complication, the _Parti Ouvrier_ would be the party to a.s.sume the role of directing it.[63]

[62] _Le Programme du Parti Ouvrier_, p. 52.

[63] _Le Programme du Parti Ouvrier_, p. 30.

The _Parti Ouvrier_ adopted a centralized form of organization. It became in time the strongest and best organized socialist party of France. It was particularly strong in the _Department du Nord_ and among the textile workers. It was also known as the ”Guesdist” party, after its leader Guesde.

The _Parti Ouvrier_ denounced the members of the _Parti Ouvrier revolutionnaire socialiste_, or ”Broussists,” also thus named after their leader Brousse, as ”opportunists and possibilists” because they believed in the possibility of reforms and had said that it was necessary ”to split up our program until we make it finally possible.”[64] The nickname, _possibilists_, has remained as another designation of the _Broussists_.

[64] L. Blum, _op. cit._, p. 75.

The _Broussists_ cared little for the theories of Marx. They were disposed to allow larger differences of doctrine within their ranks and more local autonomy in their organization. They ascribed much importance to munic.i.p.al politics. They conceived the conquest of political power as a more peaceful process of a gradual infiltration into the munic.i.p.al, departmental and national legislative bodies. But like the ”Guesdists,”

they were collectivists and took the cla.s.s struggle as their point of departure.

From the very outset, the _Broussists_ concentrated their efforts upon gaining an entrance into Parliament and into the munic.i.p.alities. They had a numerous following in Paris among the working population, and among the lower strata of the middle cla.s.s.

The split between _Guesdists_ and _Broussists_ was followed by another in the ranks of the latter. In 1887 the _Broussists_ succeeded in electing seven of their members to the munic.i.p.al council of Paris. This led to internal difficulties. A number of party members were discontented with the organization which they claimed was entirely ”bossed” by its leaders. They grouped themselves in their turn about J.

Allemane and became known as ”Allemanists.” The Allemanists accused the Broussists of being too much absorbed in politics and of neglecting the propaganda and organization of the party. In 1890 they separated from the Broussists and const.i.tuted a socialist party of their own. The Allemanists absorbed the more revolutionary elements of the party and were the leading spirits in some of the largest and strongest syndicats.

Two more socialist groups must be mentioned in order that the reader may have a complete view of the socialist world in which the syndicats of France were moving during this period. These two were the Blanquists and the Independent Socialists.