Part 8 (2/2)
[112] _X Congres National Corporatif_ (IV de la C. G. T.), Rennes, 1898, p. 77.
The ”Committee for the propaganda of the general strike” also took up the question. It sent out a question to all syndicats for a referendum vote. The question was: ”Are you for an immediate general strike in case the railroad workingmen should declare a strike?” The report of the Committee to the Congress of Rennes complained that the syndicats voted for the general strike at conventions but changed their opinions or their disposition ”when the hour for action came.”[113] ”It was disastrous to make such a discovery,” read the report,
when it was expected that by the strike of our comrades of the railroads, many other trades would be compelled by the force of events to quit work, and that this would have been the starting-point of the general strike, and possibly of that economic revolution which alone can solve the great problems which confront the entire world.[114]
[113] _X Congres National Corporatif_ (Rennes, 1898), p. 334.
[114] _Ibid._, p. 334.
The Syndicat of the Railroad Workingmen voted for a strike. But the government intercepted the strike order of the National Committee of the Syndicat, and the strike did not take place.
The Congress of Rennes made new changes in the statutes of the Confederation. The Federation of Bourses was to leave the Confederation.
The latter was to be composed only of national federations of trade and of national syndicats and to be represented by the National Council. The ”Committee of the general strike” was to be part of the Confederation, but was to be autonomous and was to live on its own resources.
The Congress discussed a number of questions: Alcoholism, suppression of employment bureaus, election of inspectors of industry, etc. Most reports on the various questions adopted by the Congress a.s.sert that the workingmen must solicit the co-operation of their representatives in the legislative bodies of the country in order to obtain any reforms. But one report was presented which emphasized the opposite idea of ”direct action”.
This report was presented by the ”Committee on the Label, the Boycott, and _Sabotage_.” The reporter on the boycott and _sabotage_--M.
Pouget--noted the little progress that had been accomplished in the application of these two methods since 1897, but again affirmed their validity and recommended them to the workingman; the report affirmed that the menace, only, of _sabotage_ is often sufficient to produce results. ”The Congress,” said the report,
cannot enter into the details of these tactics; such things depend upon the initiative and the temperament of each and are subordinate to the diversity of industries. We can only lay down the theory and express the wish that the boycott and the _sabotage_ should enter into the a.r.s.enal of weapons which the workingmen use in their struggle against capitalists on the same plane as the strike, and that, more and more, the direction of the social movement should be towards the direct action of individuals and towards a greater consciousness of their personal powers.[115]
[115] _X Congres National Corporatif_ (Rennes, 1898), p. 302.
The Congress of Paris (1900) again recorded but little progress. In the interval since Rennes (1898-1900) only a few new federations joined the General Confederation. The others, whose adherence was solicited, refused or even were not ”polite enough” to make a reply. The adhering organizations paid irregularly; the decisions of the Congresses were not executed. The Committees still did not function because the number of delegates to the National Council was small. The total income for both years amounted to 3,678 francs, of which 1,488 were dues paid.
The ”Committee for the propaganda of the general strike” had collected during this period (1898-1900) 4,262 francs. Of this 3,172 francs were the five per cent of the strike subscriptions. It may also be interesting to note that the organizations which contributed most to this sum were: Union of Syndicats of Seine, 901 francs; the Union of Machinists of Seine, 727 francs; the Federation of Moulders, 536 francs; the Federation of Metallurgy, 457 francs. The Committee published thirteen numbers of a journal, ”The General Strike,” and a brochure on the general strike.
The general strike was again the subject of a long discussion at the Congress of Paris. But the discussion was given a new turn. The question now was: ”The general strike, its organization, its eventuality, its consequences.” And the ideas that prevailed revealed some further modifications in the conception.
The question was given this turn because certain syndicats thought that the principle of the general strike had been sufficiently affirmed and that it was time to treat the subject practically. As the discussion showed, the majority of the delegates thought that the general strike could take place at any moment and that in order to be successful, it did not presuppose a majority of organized workingmen, nor big sums of money. A daring revolutionary minority conscious of its aim could carry away with it the majority of workingmen and accomplish the act of appropriating the means of production for society as a whole. Some even thought that in order that the general strike should be prompt and lead to the aim in view it was best to have no money at all; everyone would then take what he needed wherever he found it, and the result would be the completest possible emanc.i.p.ation.[116] As one of the delegates expressed it: ”Count exclusively upon the enthusiasm (_entrainement_) of the working-cla.s.s.”[117]
[116] _XI Congres National Corporatif_ (Paris, 1900), p. 198.
[117] _Ibid._, p. 113.
This conception of the general strike attributed to the syndicat a revolutionary role, as the syndicat was to take possession of the means of production in the name of society as a whole. It did not exclude however the parallel action of political parties. The latter could profit by the general strike and seize the political power of the State to co-operate in the transformation of society. But the syndicats were not to count upon this possibility; on the contrary it was their task to make the general strike absolutely independent of all political parties, to perform the princ.i.p.al part in the economic revolution and to leave to the new government, if one arose, no other function but that of sanctioning the economic change accomplished by the syndicats.
This emphasis upon the revolutionary and preponderant part to be played by the syndicats went together with a mistrust and defiance of political parties. ”All politicians are betrayers,”[118] exclaimed one delegate.
”In politics one has always to deal with intrigues,” said another, and the same sentiment pervaded the other speeches. Though not refusing to make use of all methods, ”for the disorganization of capitalism,” all delegates emphasized the necessity for the workingmen to rely mainly upon themselves and upon their syndical organizations.
[118] _XI Congres National Corporatif_ (Paris, 1900), p. 110.
The majority of delegates recognized also that the general strike must necessarily have a violent character. Though a few still thought of the general strike as of a ”peaceful revolution,” a ”strike of folded arms,”
the majority rejected this conception as childish and foresaw the inevitable collision to which the general strike would lead.
All these ideas were briefly summarized in the conclusions of the Committee appointed by the Congress to report on the question. This Commission recommended leaving the ”Committee for the propaganda of the general strike” as free as possible in its action. The Congress merely determined the syndicats which were to elect the members of the Committee. The latter was now to obtain regular monthly dues for the continuation of its work.
<script>