Part 44 (1/2)
France is by no means the only country where the question of strikes of government employees has become all-important. When the railways were nationalized in Italy there was considerable Socialist opposition on the ground that the employees were likely to lose a part of such rights as they had had when in private employment, and it turned out just as was feared. The position of the Italian Socialists on the subject is as interesting as that of the French. The Congress at Florence in 1908 resolved that ”considering the fact that a strike of munic.i.p.alized or nationalized services represents, not the struggle of the proletariat against a private capitalistic enterprise, but the conflict of a cla.s.s against the collectivity, whence the difficulty of its success, the employees in public service ought to be advised not to proclaim a strike unless urged on by the most compelling motives and when every other means have failed;” but ”taking it into consideration at the same time that in the present condition of society the working people in public service have no other means to guarantee the defense of their rights, and that in critical moments of history the suspension of public services is among the most efficacious arms of which the proletariat can avail itself to disorganize the defense of the government, any disposition to bring into legislation the principle of the abolition of the right to strike is dangerous” and ”any attempt in that direction”
must be defeated.
The gulf between those who consider the collective refusal of the organizations of government employees to work under conditions they do not accept, as being ”treason” and ”mutiny,” and those who feel that such an organization is the _very basis_ of industrial democracy of the future and the sole possible guarantee of liberty, is surely unbridgeable.
The clash between the cla.s.ses on this question of livelihood and liberty is already momentous, but its full significance can only be realized when the Socialist aim is recalled. As employees of railroads, of governments, and of industries become Socialists, they will not only be ready to strike to raise their wages, or to protect the unions and the Socialist Party, or to prevent military reaction, but also--when they have the majority with them--to take possession of government.
An editorial in the _New York Call_ (October 31, 1911) shows how most American Socialists expect the general strike to work:--
”The failure of one 'general' strike, or any attempt to carry out a general strike, does not bankrupt or destroy the working cla.s.s, for the reason that it is that cla.s.s which holds the future in its hands. Nor does such failure help capitalism--the decaying system--in any way. On the contrary, it helps disintegrate it, and the failure itself is merely the necessary prelude to a still stronger a.s.sault by the same method. The general strike seems to be like what is said of democracy, that the cure for democracy is still more democracy. In the same way the cure for the general strike is to make it still more 'general' in character. The less 'general' it is, the less chance has it of success, and the more 'general' it can be made, the more certain is it of success.
”And that success may not, and very likely will not, take the form hoped for by those who advocate it as a means of immediate or even ultimate social revolution. But even this, if true, is no argument against its use. It will, however, bring the social revolution nearer in other ways.
”We hardly, for instance, expect to see the capitalists, paralyzed by the most 'general' of general strikes surrender their property offhand to the victorious proletariat in despair of being able to operate it themselves. Much as we would like to see the working cla.s.s march in and take possession of the abandoned factories and workshops in this manner, and commence operations under their collective owners.h.i.+p, the vision can only remain while other factors are disregarded. There is possibly much more flexibility and elasticity in the capitalist system than is usually imagined by Socialists. As William Morris tells old John Ball, the 'rascal hedge-priest,' 'Masters.h.i.+p hath many s.h.i.+fts' before it finally goes down and out.
”If we were to venture an opinion, the course and procedure of the general strike, with special reference to the railroads and allied industries, will follow something in this order.
”General strikes will succeed one another intermittently, each becoming more 'general,' the method finally establis.h.i.+ng itself as a settled policy of the workers in enforcing their demands. Some may fail, but from time to time they will grow more 'general' and more powerful, and will wrest more concessions from the owners, until the point is reached where the railroad business will return practically no private profits to its owners. And when this point is reached, or the certainty of its being reached is plainly seen, then masters.h.i.+p will make its next s.h.i.+ft. There will be two alternatives.
”The first is literal, physical suppression, by the armed forces of the nation still under control of the capitalists, and greatly augmented for the purpose. This, however, for a mult.i.tude of reasons, is a most dangerous policy and much more 'impossible' than the general strike. Instead of postponing social revolution, it rather accelerates its approach.
”The other alternative, and the one by all means most likely to be adopted, is government owners.h.i.+p of the railroads, with the capitalists, of course, as owners of the government. This will undoubtedly be ushered in as 'State Socialism.' Laws will be pa.s.sed const.i.tuting the railroad workers as direct servants of the State, and forbidding the general strike or any other kind of strike.
”The prohibition will not have the desired effect. If attempted to be enforced, it merely throws capitalist society back on the first dangerous alternative policy we have mentioned. But it will give capitalism a breathing spell, and a chance to 'spar for wind' for a while, which is the best it can expect. The general strike will still be utilized to a.s.sail the capitalist State and its property.
”The final struggle will be a political one, for the capture of the State from the hands of the capitalists, and such capture will mean the transfer of capitalist State-owned property to collective property and the establishment of industrial democracy, or Socialism.”
FOOTNOTES:
[271] The following quotations are taken from the brochure, ”Der Generalstreik,” by Henriette Roland-Holst (Dresden, 1905).
[272] From a private letter published editorially in the _New York Sun_.
[273] The _Outlook_, Nov. 25, 1911.
[274] _Collier's Weekly_, Sept. 2, 1911.
[275] The _Outlook_, Aug. 26, 1911.
[276] _Die Neue Zeit_, Oct. 27, 1911.
CHAPTER VII
REVOLUTION IN DEFENSE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT