Part 19 (1/2)
The contradiction must be smoothed over by some explanation, and the theory of the ”conscious minority” arises to meet the situation. The weaker the syndicats and the more often they are exposed to the danger of dissolution the greater the necessity of the theory. A disorganized syndicat generally leaves behind a handful of militant workingmen determined to keep up the organization. The theory of the ”conscious minority” is both a stimulus to and a justification for the activities of these persistent ”militants.”
To the conditions described the French love of theory, of high-sounding phrases, and of idealistic formulas must be added. For a Frenchman it is not sufficient to act under necessity: the act must be generalized into a principle, the principles systematized, and the system of theory compressed into concise and catching formulas. And once abstracted, systematized and formulated, the ideas become a distinct force exerting an influence in the same direction as the conditions to which they correspond.
When all this is taken into account, it is easier to understand the influence of the revolutionary syndicalists. It is insufficient to explain their leaders.h.i.+p by clever machinations of the Confederal Committee, as M. Mermeix and many others do. It is quite true that the Confederal Committee tries to maintain its power by all means possible.
It sends out delegates to Federal Congresses, on conference tours over the country, to a.s.sist workingmen on strikes, etc. In most cases it sends only men who represent the revolutionary ideas of the Committee and who, therefore, strengthen the influence of the latter by word and deed. It is also true that in most _Bourses du Travail_ the secretaries are revolutionary and that they help to consolidate the influence of the Confederal Committee. But these secretaries have not usurped their power. They are elected because they have come to the front as speakers, writers, organizers, strike-leaders, etc. And they could come to the front only because conditions were such as to make their ideas and services helpful.
Whatever one's att.i.tude to the Confederation, one must acknowledge the results it has achieved. The strike statistics of France, given in the following table, show the following facts:
_Per cent of _Per cent of _Period_ strikes which strikers who lost failed_ their strikes_
1890-1899 44.61 38.63 1891-1900 43.86 34.17 1892-1901 42.69 35.42 1893-1902 42.48 31.75 1894-1903 42.13 26.98 1895-1904 40.24 25.09 1896-1905 39.07 23.76 1897-1906 38.05 25.91 1898-1907 38.14 25.37 1899-1908 35.79 25.83
Of course, these results can not be attributed entirely to the action of the Confederation. On the other hand, the influence of the Confederation on the improvement of general conditions of employment, on social legislation, etc., is undeniable. ”In all branches of human activity,”
says M. Pawlowski, ”wages have risen with a disconcerting and disquieting rapidity.”[225] The agitation for the eight-hour day and the rising of 1906 hastened the vote on the weekly rest, induced the government to consider the application of the ten-hour day, popularized the practice of the ”English week,” etc.[226]
[225] A. Pawlowski, _La Confederation Generale du Travail_, p. 130.
[226] _Ibid._, p. 123.
Whether the same or better results could have been obtained by ”reformist” methods, is not a question to be considered, because in most cases the syndicats have no choice. A strike once begun, the character of the struggle is determined by conditions which exist and not by any that would be desirable. This is proved by the fact that very often the so-called ”reformist” syndicats carry on their struggles in the same way and by the same methods as do the revolutionary ones.
The comparative influence of the Confederation explains the fact why the ”reformists” do not leave the organization, though they are bitter in their opposition to the revolutionists. The ”reformists” feel that they would thereby lose a support which is of value to them. Besides, in many cases such an act would lead to divisions within the reformist federations, all of which, as already indicated, contain considerable revolutionary minorities.
The revolutionary syndicalists, however, are in their turn compelled to make concessions to those exigences of the labor movement which have nothing to do with revolutionary ends. Of course, the revolutionary syndicalists are workingmen and they are interested in the immediate improvement of economic conditions. But there can be little doubt that the leaders and the more conscious and p.r.o.nounced revolutionary syndicalists are mainly interested in their revolutionary ideal, in the abolition of capitalism and of the wage-system. The struggles for higher wages, shorter hours, etc., are a necessity which they must make a virtue of while awaiting the hoped-for final struggle. And when they theorize about the continuity of the struggles of to-day with the great struggles of to-morrow, when they interpret their every-day activities as part of a continuous social warfare, they are merely creating a theory which in its turn justifies their practice and preserves their revolutionary fire from extinction.
But theorizing does not essentially change the character of all syndicalist activities. The Confederal Committee must attend to the administrative and other questions, such as the questions of _viatic.u.m_, of the label, etc. The necessities of the syndical movement often lead the members of the Confederal Committee into the antechambers of Parliament or into the private rooms of the Ministers whose a.s.sistance is solicited. The most revolutionary federations can not help entering into negotiations with employers for the settlement of strikes. In practice, therefore, the distinction between ”revolutionary” and ”reformist” syndicalists is often obscured, because both act as they must and not as they would.[227]
[227] This is admitted by both sides. See reports of last Congress held at Toulouse (1910), p. 111.
This must not be interpreted to mean that there is any conscious hypocrisy or undue personal interest on the part of the leaders of the revolutionary syndicalists. On the contrary, the most bitter opponents of the Confederation must admit that the reverse is true. ”However one may judge their propaganda,” says M. Mermeix, ”he is obliged to acknowledge the disinterestedness of the libertarians who lead the syndicalist movement. They do not work for money....”[228] There is also no field in the Confederation for political ambition. Still the movement has its demands which require suppleness and pliability on the part of the leaders and which make impossible the rigid application of principles.
[228] Terrail-Mermeix, _La Syndicalisme contre le Socialisme_ (Paris, 1907), p. 231.
On the other hand, the revolutionary syndicalists have in the syndicats a tremendous force for their revolutionary ends. The close relation of syndical life to all political and economic problems gives the Confederal Committee the opportunity to partic.i.p.ate in all questions of interest. The high cost of living, the danger of a war, the legislative policy of the government, troubles among the wine-growers, any public question, indeed, is the occasion for the intervention of the Confederal Committee. The latter appears, then, also as a revolutionary organization which is always ready to criticise, to discredit and to attack the government, and which is openly pursuing the overthrow of existing inst.i.tutions in France. And when one keeps in mind the indefatigable anti-militaristic and anti-patriotic propaganda carried on by the _Bourses du Travail_ all over the country, the revolutionary character of the Confederation may be fully appreciated.