Syndicalism in France

of Revolutiona

, like Pelloutier, Pouget, Griffuelhes, Delesalle, Niel, Yvetot and others, either belong to the working-class, or have completely ide

of the General Confederation of Labor from 1901 to 1908; Pouget was assistant secretary of the Confederation and editor of the Voix du Peuple from 1900 to 1908; Yvetot has been one of the secretaries

has been determined largely by the struggles of the day. There is a stronger emphasis in their writings upon methods, upon "direct action," and upon relations to other existing groups. There is less speculation and pure theorizing. In other respects the men of this group differ. They ha

Le Mouvement Socialiste was at first a Socialist monthly review, but accentuated its sympathy for the syndicalists as time went on, and became an expressly revolutionary syndicalist organ in 1904. The Mouvement Socialiste counted among its constant contributors down to 1910 M. Georges Sorel and Edouard Be

number of articles on ethics and on various other topics. The works that bear on revolutionary syndicalism which alone can be here considered, are: L'Avenir Socialiste des Syn

n 1910. Within this period of time the thought of M. Sorel has not only steadily developed in scope but has also changed in many essential points. It would require a separate study to point out the changes and their

rejecting the current interpretations of Marx and completing the lacunae which it finds in Marx. This work of revision it considers indispensable because, on the one hand, Marx was not always "well inspired,"[155] and often harked back to the past instead of penetrating int

ul idea of social evolution, namely, that the development of each social system furnishes the material conditions for effective and durable changes in the social relations within which a new system begins its development.[158] Accord

developed and continually progressing productive forces; but this is one aspect of the case only. The other, a no less if not more important aspect, is the development of new m

re" in the workingmen and a capacity for directing the economic functions of society. The social revolution will thus come only when the workingmen are "ready" for it, that is, when they feel that they can assume the direction of society. The "moral" education of the working-class, therefore, is the essential thing; Socialism will not have to "organize labor", because capitalism will have accomplished this work before. But in order that t

he syndicats develop the administrative and organizing capacities of the workingmen. In the syndicats the workingmen learn to do their business t

neral strike means a complete and "absolute" revolution. It is the idea of a decisive battle between the bourgeoisie and

cause. These images are "myths." The images of the early Christians on the coming of Christ and on the ruin of the pagan world are an illustration of a "social myth." The period of the Reformation saw the rise of "social myths," b

satisfaction in picturing to itself its future struggles and future triumph. Such images must not and cannot be analyzed like a thing; they must be taken en b

point of action. No myth can possibly be free from utopian conceptions. But the utopian elements are not essential. The essen

efore, is paramount. The idea of the general strike keeps alive and fortifies in the workingmen their class-consciousness and revolutionary feelings. Every strike on account of it assumes the character of a skirmish before the great decisive battle which is to come. Owing to the general strike idea, "socialism remai

w culture" built upon ideas and institutions totally different from the ideas and from the institutions of democracy. Socialism must have its own economic

ofessionals of politics, over whom the people can have no control. Sorel thinks that even the spread of knowledge does not render the masses more capable of choosing and of supervising their so-called representatives and that the further society advances in the path of democracy, the less effective does control by the people become.[166] The whole system o

ress is characteristic of democracy and is cherished by the bourgeois classes because it permits them to enjoy their privileges in peace. Lulled by the optimistic illusion that everything is for the best in this best of all worlds, the privileged classes can peacefully and hopefully pass by the misery and the disorders of existing society. This conception of progress, like all other ideas of democracy, was evolved by the ris

or that "blood should be shed in torrents" (versé à flots).[168] It means that the workingmen in their struggle must manifest their force so as to intimidate the employers; it means that "the social conflicts must assume the character of pure struggles similar to those of armies in a campaign."[169] Such

y are fulfiling the great and sublime mission of renovating the world; this is their only compensation for all their struggles and sufferings. The feelings of sublimity and enthusiasm have disappeared from the bourgeois-world, and their ab

ance" and presupposes an experimental knowledge of the obstacles in the way of our imaginings or in other words "a sentiment of social determinism" and a feeling of our human weakness.[171] The pessimist "regards social conditions as forming a system enchained by a

oral effort over themselves. But only in such unique moments of life when "we make an effort to create a new man within ourselves" "do we take possession of our

long M. Sorel claims to be "true to the spirit of Marx" and tries to prove this by various quotations from the works of Marx. It is doubtful, however, whether there is an affinity between th

e that "neo-Marxism" has drifted so far away from Marx as to lose touch with his "spirit." These three points bear upon the very k

necessary," as an organic, almost as a mechanical process. The impression of social necessity one gets in reading

M. Sorel speaks of the general strike and of Socialism as of possibilities or probabilities, not of necessities. In re

n the "panlogistic school," Marx always tacitly assumed that socialism could be scientific, that the procedure of science could prove the necessity of social evolution

e full of diatribes against the pretention of science to explain everything. He attributes a large r?le to the unclear, to the subco

ses to realize a radical transformation in this region which it is impossible to describe with the clearness which is found in the superficial regions of

what "Marxism has recognized": M.

eptions of the concentration of capital, of proletarization, etc., are given up. On the contrary, Socialism is to be prepared by the "revolutionary apprenticeship" of the working-class, an apprenticeship to be made in action and under the influence of a

ietzsche, to quote but two, have had their share of influence in many of the ideas expressed by M. Sorel. M. Sorel has an essentially mobile mind quick to catch an idea and to give it a somewhat new and original turn. He lacks the ability of systematizing his views and his reader must have considerable pati

s evidently so, though his main claim is "profundity." The pages of his work bristle with the word approfondir which is so often repeated that it makes the poor reader dizzy. The disappo

considers the economic and political aspects of the new doctrine. His works need not be dwelt upon because his ideas do not differ essentially from those of M. Sorel. Two points, however, may be singled out; M. Lagardelle, though criticizing democracy, is careful to point out that Socialism has been

ustave Hervé, the editor of the paper, attracted widespread attention by his attacks on the army and on the idea of patriotism, and became the enfant terrible of the French socialist movement because of his violent utterances on these questions. On other questi

d what part has each played in the history of the movement? These questions must be c

ess their ideas upon a larger or smaller portion of the organized French workingmen. This view was first presented by Professor W. Sombart in his well-known work on Socialism and the Social Movement, and has m

and again that revolutionary syndicalism was born of the experience of the labor movement and worked out by the workingmen themselves. M. Sorel has said that he learned more from the syndicalist workingmen than they could learn from him. And in an article reviewing the book of Professor Sombart, M. Berth has insisted that Professor Sombart was in error. "If we had any part,

general strike was elaborated by workingmen-members of the various committees on the general strike. The idea of "direct action," as has been shown, found its defenders in the first Congresses of the General Confederat

ration. They were no more than a group of writers who, watching the syndicalist movement from the outside, were stimulated by it to their reflections and ideas. They thought they found in the syndicalist movement

n, Jaurès, Proudhon and other contemporary or former socialist and anarchist writers, and as many non-socialist writers are. Naturally, some workingmen

ed by the workingmen could not inspire them to action. If "images of battles" are important for the "rising classes" as an impelling force, they can be so only so long as they are na?vely and fully believed in. The worm of reflection must not touch them. The "men longi

en one reads the original documents of the syndicalist movement, he is struck, on the contrary, by the powerful torrent of optimism by which the movement is carried along. Only a strong belief in a "speedy emancipation"

eories of M. Sorel. As has been indicated already, their writings bear a different stamp. And if among these writers some, as for instance M. Griffuelhes, see

y. In the same year, M. Sorel, in his preface to Pelloutier's Histoire des Bourses du Travail, wrote: "The Confederation of Labor appears to me to be destined to become an officious Council of Labor, and an academy of proletarian ideas, which will present its wishes to the government, as the large agricultural soc

ndicalism. M. Sorel has recently renounced his revolutionary syndicalist ideas. In December, 1910

ure will correct the evils of the present hour; but the author feels himself too old to live in distant hopes; and he has decided to employ

nditions of France such an act could not but shock the workingmen who may criticise democracy but who are bitterly opposed to everything connected with the ancien régime. This act of M. Sorel and M. Berth weakened the group of Le Mouvement Socialiste which, however, is stil

ary turn which the syndicats took. Their influence, hailed by some, deplored by others, is recognized by all. The Anarchists themselves often speak as if they "created" the entire movement, though this is an exaggeration. The r?le of the Allemanists has been cons

They have been very persistent in trying to delimit their theoretical dominion from parliamentary socialism on the one hand, and from Anarchism on the other. From the latter particularly they wished to be

old "International Association of Workingmen," and especially in the writings of the Bakounist or federalist wing of that Association. If not the terms, the ideas on di

r instance, was expressly guided by the conceptions of Proudhon and Bakounin. References to the "International" are also frequent in the discussions of the Congresses of the General Confederation. The more important factors, however, were the conditions of the French syndical movement itself. The workingmen of different socialist groups meeting on the common ground of the syndicat had to attenua

inly determined in their further evolution by this practice. The ideas, therefore, must be judged in connection w