Part 18 (1/2)
Those who consciously call themselves revolutionary syndicalists belong to one of the groups described, and the three groups const.i.tute the _bloc_ spoken of above. To understand revolutionary syndicalism means to understand this _bloc_ of revolutionary elements, how it was made possible, why it is maintained, and what conditions have secured for it the leaders.h.i.+p in the General Confederation of Labor.
It has been shown in the preceding chapters that since 1830 a considerable part of the French workingmen, the so-called ”militant”
workingmen, have always cherished the hope of a ”complete” or ”integral”
emanc.i.p.ation which should free them from the wage-system and from the economic domination of the employer. The desire of independence had guided the life of the journeyman under the guild-system, and its birth under modern economic conditions is natural enough to need no explanation. But while under the guild-system this desire had an individualistic character, under the technical conditions of the present time it necessarily led to collectivist ideas. With the development of highly expensive means of production, only an insignificant number of workingmen could hope to become economically independent by individual action, and the only way to attain economic freedom and equality for all pointed to the collective appropriation of the means of production and to the collective management of industrial activities.
The insistence on economic freedom--in the sense indicated--runs through all the literature of the French Labor Movement. It is not only and not so much the inequality of wealth, the contrasts of distribution that stimulate the militant workingmen to their collectivist hopes, as it is the protest against the ”arbitrariness” of the employer and the ideal of a ”free workshop.” To attain the latter is the main thing and forms the program of the General Confederation as formulated in the first clause of its statutes.
The sensitiveness to economic inferiority is increased in the French militant workingmen by the fact that in a country like France economic distinctions are combined with social distinctions. Owing to the traditions of the past, economic cla.s.ses are separated by a number of other elements, in which intellectual, social and other influences combine and which transform the economic cla.s.ses into social cla.s.ses.
The aspiration towards economic equality increases, therefore, in volume and becomes a striving after social equality.
The historical traditions of France combined with the impatience for emanc.i.p.ation explain the revolutionary spirit of the French socialist workingman. All who have come into contact with French life have convinced themselves of the power which the revolutionary traditions of the past exert over the people. The French workingman is brought up in the admiration of the men of the Great Revolution; his modern history is full of revolutionary secret societies, of insurrections, and of revolutionary struggles. He cherishes the memory of the Revolution of 1848, his indignation is aroused by the story of the Days of June, his pity and sympathy are stimulated by the events of the Commune. Looking backward into the history of the past century and a half, he can only get the feeling of political instability, and the conviction is strengthened in him that ”his” revolution will come just as the revolution of the ”Third-Estate” had come. Combined with the desire to attain the ”integral” emanc.i.p.ation as soon as possible, these conditions engender in him the revolutionary spirit.[216]
[216] On the peculiar character of French history see Adams, _Growth of the French Nation_; Berry, _France since Waterloo_; Barrett Wendell, _France of To-day_.
The revolutionary spirit predisposes the socialist workingman to a skeptical att.i.tude toward parliamentary action which rests on conciliation and on compromise and is slow in operation. He seeks for other methods which seem to promise quicker results. The methods themselves may change; they were insurrection once, they are now the general strike. But the end they serve remains the same: to keep up the hope of a speedy liberation.
The distrust of parliamentary methods has been strengthened in the French socialist workingman by another fact. The French workingmen have seen their political leaders rise to the very top, become Ministers and Premiers (_e. g._, Millerand, Viviani, Briand), and then turn against their ”comrades” of old. The feeling has been thereby created in the socialist workingmen that parliamentary methods are merely a means to a brilliant career for individuals who know how to make use of them.
The mistrust of ”politicians” finds some nourishment in the fact that the political leaders of the Socialist movement are generally the ”intellectuals,” between whom and the workingmen there is also some antagonism. The ”intellectuals” are thrown out upon the social arena princ.i.p.ally by the lower and middle bourgeoisie and generally enter the liberal professions. But whether lawyer, writer, doctor or teacher, the French ”intellectual” sooner or later enters the field of ”politics”
which allures him by the vaster possibilities it seems to offer. In fact, the ”intellectual” has always been a conspicuous figure in the history of French Socialism. As a socialist poet, Pierre Dupont, sang,
”Socialism has two wings, The student and the workingman.”
And as the socialist ideas have spread, the number of ”intellectuals” in the socialist movement has been constantly increasing.
The ”two wings” of the Socialists, however, cannot perfectly adapt themselves to one another. The ”intellectual” generally lacks the ”impatience for deliverance” which characterizes the socialist workingman. The ”intellectual” is bound by more solid ties to the _status quo_; his intellectual preoccupations predispose him to a calmer view of things, to regard society as a slow evolutionary process.
Besides, the ”intellectual” takes pride in the fact that he supplies ”the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress”; he is inclined, therefore, to dominate the workingman as his ”minor brother”, and to advocate methods which secure his own predominant part in the movement. Parliamentary action is the field best adapted to his character and powers. The socialist workingman, on the other hand, protests against the tendencies of the ”intellectual”, particularly against the dominating impulses of the latter. He is anxious to limit the powers of his leaders, if possible, and to create such forms of organization as shall a.s.sure his own independence.
When the syndicats began to develop in France, the revolutionary workingmen seized upon them as a form of organization particularly adapted to their demands. The syndicat was an organization which could take up the ideal of social emanc.i.p.ation; in the general strike, which the syndicat seemed to carry within itself, there was a method of speedy liberation; the syndicat excluded the ”intellectuals” and above all by its ”direct action” it maintained and strengthened the revolutionary spirit and safeguarded the revolutionary ideal from the compromises and dangers to which politics and the parliamentary socialists subjected it.
These conditions: the hope of social emanc.i.p.ation, the impatience for deliverance, the revolutionary spirit, and the defiance of the ”intellectuals” and of the ”politicians,” gave and continue to give life to revolutionary syndicalism. They brought into being the ”revolutionary _bloc_” in the General Confederation of Labor and maintain it there. Of course, differences of temperament and shadings of opinion exist. On the one extreme are those who are most vehement in their propaganda and who combat the Socialist party; on the other, are the revolutionary socialists who are disposed to co-operate with the parliamentary socialists, but who want to have an independent organization to fall back upon in case of disagreement with the political party. But differing in details, the revolutionary elements agree in the main points and they stamp upon the Confederation the character which it bears and which is described in the terms ”revolutionary syndicalism.”
The opponents of the revolutionary syndicalists claim that the latter are followed only by a minority in the General Confederation and that they maintain their leaders.h.i.+p by means of the existing system of representation and by other more or less arbitrary devices. This statement, however, cannot be proved in any satisfactory way.
The best way of obtaining the exact number of revolutionary syndicalists in the Confederation would seem to be by means of an a.n.a.lysis of the votes taken at the Congresses. This method, however, is defective for several reasons. In the first place, not all the syndicats adhering to the Confederation are represented at the Congresses. At the Congress of Bourges (1904), 1,178 syndicats out of 1,792 were represented; at the Congress of Amiens, 1,040 out of 2,399; at the Congress of Ma.r.s.eilles, 1,102 out of 2,586, and at the Congress of Toulouse, 1,390 out of 3,012.
It is evident, therefore, that even if all the votes were taken unanimously, they would still express the opinion of less than half the syndicats of the Confederation.
In the second place, the votes of the Confederation being taken by syndicats, to get the exact figures it would be necessary to know how many syndicats in each federation are revolutionary or not, and what is the proportional strength of both tendencies in each syndicat. This is impossible in the present state of statistical information furnished by the Confederation.
At the Congress of Amiens, for instance, the vote approving the report of the Confederal Committee (Section of Federation) stood 815 against 106 (18 blanks). This vote is important, because to approve or to reject the report meant to approve or to reject the ideas by which the General Confederation is guided.
Now, an a.n.a.lysis of the vote at Amiens shows that while some organizations voted solidly for the Confederal Committee, none voted solidly against it and that the votes of many organizations were divided. But even the number of those represented by the unanimous vote of their syndicats cannot in the most cases be ascertained. For instance, the agricultural syndicats cast their 28 votes for the Confederal Committee; the report of the Confederal Committee gives the Federation of Agricultural Laborers 4,405 members; but the same report says that the Federation consisted of 106 syndicats; of these 106 syndicats only 28 were represented at the Congress, and how many members they represented there is no possibility of ascertaining. The same is true of those Federations in which the syndicats did not cast the same vote.
This difficulty is felt by those who try to prove by figures that the Confederation is dominated by a minority. M. Ch. Franck, for instance, calculates that at the Congress of Ma.r.s.eilles 46 organizations with 716 mandates representing 143,191 members obtained the majority for the _statu quo_ against the proposition of proportional representation; while the minority consisted of 15 organizations with 379 mandates representing 145,440 members. In favor of the anti-militaristic resolution, he calculates further, 33 organizations with 670 mandates representing 114,491 members obtained the majority against 19 organizations with 406 mandates representing 126,540 members. But he is compelled to add immediately: ”These figures have no absolute value, because we have taken each organization in its entirety, while in the same federation some syndicats have not voted with the majority”; he thinks that the proportion remains nevertheless the same because he did not take into consideration the divisions on each side.[217]
[217] _Op. cit._, pp. 345-6.
The last a.s.sumption, however, is arbitrary, because the syndicats dissenting on the one side may have been more numerous than those not voting with the majority on the other side; the whole calculation, besides, is fallacious, because it takes the figures of the federations in their entirety, while only a part of the syndicats composing them took part in the votes.
The attempt, therefore, to estimate the exact number of the revolutionary syndicalists in the Confederation must be given up for the present. The approximate estimate on either side can be given. According to M. Pawlowski,[218] 250,000 members of the Confederation (out of 400,000) repudiate the revolutionary doctrine; the revolutionary syndicalists, on the other hand, claim a majority of two-thirds for themselves. The impartial student must leave the question open.