Part 5 (1/2)
[72] G. de Molinari, _Les Bourses du Travail_ (Paris, 1893), p. 257.
[73] Molinari, _op. cit._, p. 280.
The first _Bourse du Travail_ was opened in Paris in 1887. The example of Paris was followed by other munic.i.p.alities of France, and in a short time many of the larger cities of France had their _Bourses du Travail_.
The Allemanists obtained the predominating influence in the _Bourses du Travail_, and they conceived the idea of opposing to the ”National Federation of Syndicats”--which was an instrument in the hands of the Guesdists--a ”Federation of _Bourses du Travail_,” in which they would have the leading part.[74] The ”Federation of _Bourses du Travail_” was organized in 1892 with the following program: (1) To unify the demands of the workingmen's syndicats and to bring about the realization of these demands; (2) To extend and to propagate the action of the _Bourses du Travail_, in the industrial and agricultural centers; (3) To nominate delegates to the National Secretariat of Labor; (4) To collect statistical data and to communicate them to the adhering Bourses, and at the same time to generalize the gratuitous service of finding employment for workers of both s.e.xes and of all trades.[75]
[74] Pelloutier, _op. cit._, p. 64.
[75] Seilhac, _Les Congres Ouvriers_, p. 230.
The ”National Secretariat of Labor” mentioned was created after the International Socialist Congress of Brussels in 1891. The Congress of Brussels had proposed to create in all countries National Secretariats in order to unify the labor and socialist movement of the world. In France, the National Secretariat of Labor soon experienced the fate of other organizations. In view of political differences, it was abandoned by the Guesdists, Independents, and Broussists. It therefore could not achieve the aim it had in view and lost all significance.
Into this situation there now entered another factor, which was to determine the course of further groupings. This factor was the idea of the general strike. The idea was not new in the history of the labor movement and not original with France. It had been widely discussed in England during the 30's[76] and afterwards at the Congresses of the ”International”.[77] It reappeared in France in the second half of the 80's and seems to have been suggested by the wide strike movement in America during 1886-7. Its first propagandist in France seems to have been a French anarchist workingman, Tortelier, a member of the syndicat of carpenters.[78]
[76] B. & S. Webb, _History of Trade Unionism_, pp. 118-122.
[77] Dr. E. Georgi, _Theorie und Praxis des Generalstreiks in der modernen Arbeiterbewegung_ (Jena, 1908).
[78] H. Lagardelle, _La Greve Generale et le Socialisme_ (Paris, 1905), p. 42.
The idea of the general strike was hailed enthusiastically by the French syndicats. On the one hand it seemed to give the workingmen a new weapon in their economic struggles. It was seen above how reluctant French workingmen had been to use the strike during the 60's and 70's. Though forced by economic conditions to use it, the French workingmen still considered it a necessary evil which never fully rewarded the sacrifices it involved. The general strike seemed to repair the defects of the partial strike. It seemed to insure success by increasing the number of strikers and by extending the field of disturbance. On the other hand, the general strike suggested itself as a method of bringing about the Social Revolution. This question was a vital one with the socialist syndicats. It was much debated and discussed and divided deeply the adherents of the various socialist and anarchist groups. ”The conquest of political power,” the method advocated by Guesdists and others, seemed vague and indefinitely remote; a general revolt, such as advocated by the anarchists, seemed impossible in view of the new armaments and of the new construction of cities which made barricades and street fighting a thing of the past. These two methods eliminated, the general strike seemed to present the only and proper weapon in the hands of the workingmen for the realization of their final emanc.i.p.ation.
In this sense, the principle of the general strike was voted for the first time in 1888 at the Congress of the ”National Federation of Syndicats” in Bordeaux. The idea spread rapidly. The Allemanists declared in favor of it at their Congresses in 1891 and 1892.[79]
Fernand Pelloutier, of whom more will be said in the next chapter, defended it successfully before a socialist congress in Tours in 1892.
The same year, Aristide Briand appeared as the eloquent champion of the general strike before the Congress of the ”National Federation of Syndicats” in Ma.r.s.eilles.[80] The Blanquists admitted the general strike as one of the possible revolutionary means. Only the Guesdists were against the general strike and at their Congress in Lille (1890) declared it impossible.
[79] L. Blum, _op. cit._, pp. 129, 137.
[80] _Le Congres National des Syndicats, Compte Rendu_, pp. 45 _et seq._
The conception of the general strike that prevailed during this period was that of a peaceful cessation of work. The strike, it was agreed, is a right guaranteed by law. Even if a strike were to spread to many industries and a.s.sume a general character, the workingmen would still be exercising their rights and could not be lawfully prosecuted. The general strike, therefore, would enable the workingmen to carry out a Revolution by legal means and would make the revolution an easy matter.
The general strike must mean revolution because a complete cessation of work would paralyze the life of the country and would reduce the ruling cla.s.ses to famine. Lasting a few days only, it would compel the government to capitulate before the workingmen, and would carry the workingmen's party into power. Thus, a ”peaceful strike of folded arms”
(_greve des bras croises_) would usher in the Social Revolution which would bring about the transformation of society. The feeling prevailed that the general strike could begin any moment and that it a.s.sured the speedy realization of the socialist ideal. At first it was thought that the general strike could be organized or decreed, but this idea was soon given up, and the general strike came to be thought of as a spontaneous movement which might be hastened only by propaganda and organization.
The conception of the general strike involved one more important point.
It implied the superior value of the economic method of organization and struggle over the political. The general strike is a phenomenon of economic life and must be based on an economic organization of the working-cla.s.s.
On this conception of the general strike the Guesdists threw themselves with all the subtlety of their dialectics. They a.s.serted that the idyllic picture of the social revolution was too puerile to be taken seriously; that before the capitalists felt the pangs of hunger, the workingmen would already have starved.[81] They insisted that no such peaceful general strike was possible: that either the workingmen would lose their composure, or the government would provoke a collision. On the other hand, they affirmed that a successful general strike presupposes a degree of organization and solidarity among workingmen which, if realized, would make the general strike itself unnecessary.
But, above all, they argued that the general strike could not be successful, because in the economic field the workingmen are weaker than the capitalists and cannot hope to win; that only in the political field are the workingmen equal, and even superior to the employers, because they are the greater number. The conclusion, therefore, was that ”the general strike is general nonsense” and that the only hope of the workingmen lay in the conquest of political power. The syndicat could only have a secondary and limited importance in the struggle for emanc.i.p.ation.[82]
[81] To meet this criticism the Allemanists argued that the militant workingmen could have ”reserves” acc.u.mulated little by little which would allow them to await for some time the results of the general strike.
[82] G. Deville, _Principes Socialistes_ (Paris, 1896), pp. 191-201.
The att.i.tude of the Guesdists towards the general strike brought them into conflict with the ”National Federation of Syndicats” which voted in favor of the general strike at Ma.r.s.eilles in 1892. The conflict at first was latent, but soon led to a split in the ”National Federation of Syndicats” and to a readjustment of the various elements of the syndicats. This took place in the following way.