Syndicalism in France.

by Louis Levine.

PREFACE

The term syndicalism no longer needs an introduction to the English reader. Within the past two years it has been naturalized in all English-speaking countries, and has become more or less widely known. It has even been enriched as a result of its migration. In France it simply expressed the comparatively innocent idea of trade unionism, while both in England and America it has come to designate those explosive and aggressive forms of labor unionism which the French described in the words "revolutionary syndicalism." The English use of the term has reacted upon the French syndicalists who have now generally dropped the adjective "revolutionary" and speak of their movement as "le syndicalisme" or "le syndicalisme francais." In a word, as a result of recent industrial events the world over, syndicalism has emerged as a new movement of international scope and character. The most significant manifestation of this new development was the first international syndicalist congress which was held in London during the month of September of last year and at which delegates from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, the United States, England and other countries were present.

The appearance of syndicalist tendencies in other countries has thrown some new light upon the subject. What was considered at one time the peculiar product of France or of the "Latin spirit," appears now to transcend the boundaries of particular countries and of kindred racial groups. It is evidently more closely related to industrial conditions.

But its emergence in such countries as England and the United States destroys the familiar hypothesis that syndicalism is bred only by the small workshop. The latter may explain some peculiar aspects of French syndicalism; it can not explain the methods of direct action and the syndicalist spirit common to all countries.

The explanation seems to me to lie in the direction indicated in the concluding chapter of this book. Three essential causes for the development of French syndicalism are pointed out in it: namely, political disillusionment, the economic weakness of the labor elements, and the comparatively static character of French industry. Recent industrial developments in England and the United States prove that the same conditions explain the appearance of syndicalist tendencies everywhere. The disappointment of the British workers in the political possibilities of the Labor Party, the general mistrust of "politicians"

and the actual disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of large elements of the working population in the United States are facts which are not disputed, and the influence of which in recent industrial events is no longer denied.

The comparative weakness of sectional unionism in England and of the unskilled elements in the American labor movement has been brought home to the workers themselves and has determined their change of tactics.

Some French syndicalists have criticized the author of this book for laying too much emphasis on the financial weakness of the syndicats in France. But that is a misunderstanding on their part; the emphasis is not on finances, but on weakness which may be the result of many circ.u.mstances. Labor unions may have millions in the banks, and still be weak economically on account of the technical conditions of the industry or of the strong organization of the employers. A consciousness of weakness in certain respects must not lead necessarily to submission or to despair. But it generally leads to efforts in new directions and to new methods of action. It has resulted in the amalgamation of unions in England and in the wonderful effort to create a general spirit of solidarity among all elements of labor the world over.

The comparatively static character of industrial life in France has no parallel in England or the United States. This explains why in the latter two countries the ideal aspects of syndicalism have obtained less significance, than in France. In an atmosphere of slow industrial growth, possibilities of immediate industrial gains do not loom up large in the eyes of the workers and no hope of considerable permanent improvement under given conditions is aroused; on the other hand, the forcible acquisition of the whole industrial equipment and its co-operative management seem comparatively easy.

In the concluding chapter of this book, the possibilities of a change in the character of French syndicalism which were indicated in the first edition are left unchanged. Developments are not yet ripe to warrant any definite conclusion. Of course, some very important phenomena have taken place. The most significant, perhaps, is the development of the iron and steel industry in the eastern parts of France, particularly in the Department Meurthe-et-Moselle. Something very similar to what happened in the steel industry of the United States is happening there; large plants are being erected, gigantic industrial combinations are being formed, labor organizations are relentlessly fought, and foreign workers are imported from Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and other countries. Under these conditions, new problems are thrust upon the French labor movement, and it is significant that the Federation of the metal workers has played the leading part in the recent campaign against the "anarchistic" tendencies of the General Confederation of Labor and has demanded a return to the platform of Amiens (1906) and to a more definite program of labor demands. This does not mean a change in the ideas of French syndicalism, but it certainly indicates a tendency towards the more positive work of organization and of purely trade conquests.

It may be many years, before the struggle of tendencies in the General Confederation of Labor is determined either way. Meanwhile, the significance of French Syndicalism to the world of thought and action has become greater than it was before. France continues to present both the ideas and activities of syndicalism in the most lucid and developed form.

This fact, I take it, has been partly responsible for the keen interest in the first edition of this book and for the necessity of bringing forth a second edition.

LOUIS LEVINE.

NEW YORK CITY, MARCH, 1914.

INTRODUCTION

The democratic social movement has overleaped its platform and escaped out of the hands of its instigators. It is larger than any school of ideas and will not be bound by any program. It can be a.n.a.lyzed in part, and in general terms described, but it can no longer be defined.

Socialism as one phase of this unmanaged and unmanageable tide, has itself been profoundly affected by the magnitude, the complexity, and the waywardness of the ma.s.s motion. It now has its "Right" and its "Left." There is a conservative, and there is a radical socialism. Each proclaims the cla.s.s struggle, and both demand the collective ownership of the chief means of production. But conservative socialism lays stress upon collective ownership, and would move toward it by peaceful, evolutionary steps. It relies on the ballot, believes in legislation, in law, and in government; while radical socialism proclaims "the revolution," plans for the general strike, and preaches the expediency of _sabotage_ and violence.

At first sight almost identical with radical socialism is Syndicalism, which, however, proves upon examination to be both more and less than any socialistic program. In its most characteristic expression, syndicalism denies the state and would subst.i.tute for it a purely voluntary collectivism. So far it is at one with anarchism, and there are those who conceive of syndicalism as an anarchistic movement in opposition to socialism. The trade-union organization of labor the world over is looked upon by the syndicalist as the natural basis and agency of his enterprise, quite as existing political organizations are accepted by the conservative or parliamentary socialist as the best preliminary norms from which to evolve a new social order.

In this division of the forces of social democracy into right and left groups over the question of organization and control, we have a significant demonstration of the inadequacy of that Marxian a.n.a.lysis which resolves all social conflict into the antagonism of economic cla.s.ses. More profound than that antagonism, and in the order of time more ancient, is the unending warfare between those who believe in law and government for all, and those who believe in law and government for none. The more or less paradoxical character of the socialistic movement at the present moment is attributable to the circ.u.mstance that, for the time being, these antagonistic forces of socialism and anarchism are confronting a common enemy--the individualist, who believes in law and government for everybody but himself.

To describe, explain and estimate a phenomenon so complex as modern revolutionary syndicalism is a task from which the economist and the historian alike might well shrink. To understand it and to enable readers to understand it is an achievement. I think that I am not speaking in terms of exaggeration in saying that Dr. Levine has been more successful in this arduous undertaking than any predecessor. His pages tell us in a clear and dispa.s.sionate way what revolutionary syndicalism is, how it began, and how it has grown, what its informing ideas and purposes are, and by what methods it is forcing itself upon the serious attention of the civilized world. I think that it is a book which no student of affairs can afford to overlook, or to read in any other spirit than that of a sincere desire to know what account of the most profound social disturbance of our time is offered by a competent reporter of the facts.

FRANKLIN H. GIDDINGS.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

CHAPTER I

THE LABOR MOVEMENT IN FRANCE TO THE COMMUNE (1789-1871)

The economic legislation of the French Revolution was guided by individualistic ideas which expressed the interests of the rising middle cla.s.ses who felt a necessity of removing the obstacles in the way of economic initiative and of personal effort. These interests and ideas dictated the law of March 2-17, 1791, which abolished the guilds and inaugurated the era of compet.i.tion in France (_Liberte du Travail_). The law declared that henceforth everybody was "free to do such business, exercise such profession, art, or trade, as he may choose."[2]

[2] _Les a.s.sociations Professionelles Ouvrieres_, Office du Travail (Paris, 1899), vol. i, p. 7.

The abolition of the guilds cleared the way for the technical changes that had just begun and the development of which was yet in the future.

These changes may be summarized as the application of science to industry and the introduction of machinery. The process went on in France irregularly, affecting different industries and different localities in various degrees. The first machine (_machine a vapeur_) was introduced in France about 1815; in 1830 there were about 600 in operation. Some idea of the later changes may be gained from the following table giving the number of machines in France from 1839 to 1907:

_Year_ _No. of Machines_ _Total Horsepower_ 1839 2,450 33,000 1851 5,672 71,000 1861 15,805 191,000 1871 26,146 316,000 1881 44,010 576,000 1891 55,967 916,000 1901 75,866 1,907,000 1910 82,238 2,913,013[3]

[3] _Annuaire Statistique_.

The introduction of machinery meant the absorption of a larger part of the population in industry, the concentration of industry in a smaller number of establishments and the absolute and relative increase in the numbers of the working population of France.

This cla.s.s of the population was regulated in its economic action for nearly a century by another law pa.s.sed June 14-17, 1791, and known by the name of its author as the law Le Chapelier. The law Le Chapelier, though dictated by the same general interests and ideas as the law on the guilds, was made necessary by special circ.u.mstances.

The abolition of the guilds had as one of its effects an agitation among the journeymen for higher wages and for better conditions of employment.

During the summer of 1791, Paris was the scene of large meetings of journeymen, at which matters of work and wages were discussed. The movement spread from trade to trade, but the struggle was particularly acute in the building trades. Profiting by the law of August 21, 1790, which gave all citizens the "right to a.s.semble peacefully and to form among themselves free a.s.sociations subject only to the laws which all citizens must obey,"[4] the carpenters formed _L'Union fraternelle des ouvriers en l'art de la charpente_, an a.s.sociation ostensibly for benevolent purposes only, but which in reality helped the carpenters in their struggle with their masters. The masters repeatedly pet.i.tioned the munic.i.p.ality of Paris to put an end to the "disorders," and to the "tyranny" of the journeymen. The masters complained that a general coalition of 80,000 workingmen had been formed in the capital and that the agitation was spreading to the provincial towns.[5] The munic.i.p.al authorities tried to meet the situation, but their "notices" and "decrees" had no effect. They then appealed to the Const.i.tuent a.s.sembly for a general law on a.s.sociations and combinations. The result was the law Le Chapelier.

[4] _Les a.s.sociations Professionelles_, vol. i, p. 8.

[5] H. Lagardelle, _L'evolution des Syndicats Ouvriers en France_ (Paris, 1901), p. 13.

The report by which the bill was introduced brought out very clearly the individualistic ideas by which the legislators of the Revolution were inspired. "Citizens of certain trades," read this report, "must not be permitted to a.s.semble for their pretended common interests. There is no longer any corporation (guild) in the State; there is but the particular interest of each individual and the general interest...." And further, "It is necessary to abide by the principle that only by free contracts, between individual and individual, may the workday for each workingman be fixed; it is then for the workingman to maintain the agreement which he had made with his employer."[6]

[6] _Les a.s.sociations Professionelles_, vol. i, pp. 11-12.

The law identified the new combinations with the ancient guilds. Its first clause declared that "whereas the abolition of all kinds of corporations of citizens of the same estate (_etat_) and of the same trade is one of the fundamental bases of the French Const.i.tution, it is prohibited to re-establish them _de facto_ under any pretext or form whatsoever". The second clause formulated the prohibition to form trade organizations in terms which left nothing to be desired in clearness and precision. It read: "The citizens of the same estate or trade, entrepreneurs, those who run a shop, workingmen in any trade whatsoever, shall not, when a.s.sembled together, nominate presidents, nor secretaries, nor syndics, shall not keep any records, shall not deliberate nor pa.s.s resolutions nor form any regulations with reference to their pretended common interests." The fourth clause declared all acts contrary to this law unconst.i.tutional, subject to the jurisdiction of the police tribunals, punishable by a fine of 500 _livres_ and by a temporary suspension of active rights of citizenship. The sixth and seventh clauses determined higher penalties in cases of menace and of violence. The eighth clause prohibited all "gatherings composed of artisans, of workingmen, of journeymen or of laborers, or instigated by them and directed against the free exercise of industry and work to which all sorts of persons have a right under all sorts of conditions agreed upon by private contract (_de gre a gre_)". "Such gatherings are declared riotous, are to be dispersed by force, and are to be punished with all the severity which the law permits."[7]

[7] _Les a.s.sociations Professionelles_, vol. i, pp. 13-14.

After the law was pa.s.sed by the a.s.sembly, the author of the law, Le Chapelier, added:

I have heard some say that it would be necessary to make an exception in favor of the Chambers of Commerce in cities. Certainly you understand well that none of us intend to prevent the merchants from discussing their common interests. I therefore propose to insert into the proceedings the following clause: "The National a.s.sembly, considering that the law which it has just pa.s.sed does not concern the Chambers of Commerce, pa.s.ses to the order of the day."

The proposition was adopted. "This last vote," remarks the official historian of the _Office du Travail_, "demonstrates sufficiently that the law was especially directed against the meetings, a.s.sociations and coalitions of workingmen."[8]

[8] _Les a.s.sociations Professionelles_, vol. i, p. 14.

The determination to prevent collective action on the part of the workingmen also guided the legislative activity of Napoleon. In 1803, during the Consulate, a law was pa.s.sed against coalitions; the same law contained a provision whereby all workingmen were to have a special certificate (_livret_)[9] which subjected them to a strict surveillance of the police. The law of 1803 against coalitions was replaced in 1810 by the clauses 414-416 of the Penal Code which prohibited and punished all kinds of coalitions. These articles which made strikes and all collective action a crime, and which showed clearly discrimination against workingmen, were as follows: