To enlarge the possible operations of the syndicats, the government also introduced a bill into the Chamber (November 14, 1899) which contained several modifications of the law of 1884. This bill proposed to extend the commercial capacities of the syndicat and to grant the syndicat the rights of a juridical person.

To complete the series of measures which were to impart a peaceful character to the syndical movement, M. Millerand introduced into the chamber a bill (November 15, 1900) on the regulation of strikes and on arbitration. This law-project proposed a complicated mechanism for the settlement of economic conflicts. It hinged on the principle that strikes should be decided by secret ballot and by a majority vote renewed at brief intervals by all workingmen concerned; permanent arbitration boards in the industrial establishments were part of the mechanism.[130]

[130] Only the most important measures of M. Millerand are mentioned; they do not by any means exhaust his legislative activities during this period.

Toward this series of labor laws the Congress of Lyons was to define its att.i.tude. The principle of the Superior Council of Labor was accepted by a majority of 258 against 205 votes (5 blank); the project on the regulation of strikes and on arbitration was rejected by a unanimous vote minus five; the Councils of Labor proposition was rejected by a majority of 279 against 175 (18 blank).

The discussion on the labor laws brought out the fact that the idea of "direct action" had undergone further modifications as a result of the policy of the government. M. Waldeck-Rousseau was denounced by the speakers as "a clever defender of the interests of the bourgeoisie" who wished merely to stop the offensive movement of the workingmen.[131]

The legislative measures of the "pseudo-socialist minister",[132]

Millerand, were interpreted as schemes for restraining the revolutionary action of the syndicats.[133] The workingmen were warned that, if they accepted the laws, they would "reinforce a power which they wanted to destroy".[134] They were reminded that the main function of the syndicat was to organize the workmen for their final emanc.i.p.ation which presupposes the "abolition of the wage-system" and that all "so-called labor laws" would only r.e.t.a.r.d the hour of final liberation.

[131] _XII Congres National Corporatif_ (VI de la C. G. T.), Lyons, 1901, p. 110.

[132] _Ibid._, p. 114.

[133] _Ibid._, p. 210.

[134] _Ibid._, p. 112.

The revolutionary elements of the Congress did not deny, however, the possibility or the desirability of reforms. They insisted only upon particular methods of obtaining reforms and upon a particular kind of reforms. They rejected all peaceful discussion with employers because the interests of employers and of workingmen were held to be distinct and antagonistic. They did not want an "economic parliamentarism"[135]

which would necessarily take the sting out of the workingmen's weapons and deprive the syndicats of their force. They wanted such reforms only as should "undermine the foundations"[136] of existing society and which should advance the movement for "integral emanc.i.p.ation" by strengthening the forces and the organization of the workingmen.

[135] _Ibid._, p. 218.

[136] _Ibid._, p. 110.

Such reforms could be obtained only "independently of all parliamentarism",[137] by the workingmen organized in their syndicats displaying all their initiative, manifesting all their energies, relying only upon themselves and not upon intermediaries. Only in this way would the syndicats wrest "piece by piece from capitalistic society reforms the application of which would finally give the exploited cla.s.s the force which is indispensable in order to bring about the social revolution".[138]

[137] _XI Congres National Corporatif_, p. 114.

[138] _Ibid._, p. 119.

These ideas showed the further application which the principle of "direct action" was given by the revolutionary elements in the syndicats. The syndicats were not only to carry on their struggle "directly" against employers by strikes, boycotts and _sabotage_, but also against the State, and not only against the State appearing as the "enemy of labor", but also against the State wishing to become the protector and benefactor of the workingmen. This hostility to the State and to its reform-legislation marked a further accentuation of the ideas of revolutionary syndicalism.

The Congress of Lyons took, also, a decided stand on the relations of the syndicats to political action. Under "political action" of course the action of the Socialist parties was meant. After the foundation of the General Confederation of Labor certain important changes had taken place in the socialist movement of France which could not but have their effect upon the syndicats.

In 1893 the socialist parties had their first big success in the general elections. They obtained about 600,000 votes[139] and elected over 50 deputies. The socialist deputies in the Chamber const.i.tuted a Parliamentary Group--_Union Socialiste_--which acted in common. This strengthened the tendency toward union which had already manifested itself, during the elections, when the Socialists had entered into unions among themselves.

[139] A. Hamon, _Le Socialisme et le Congres de Londres_ (Paris, 1897), p. 11.

The unity in action was further made possible by a unity in views which was becoming more and more manifest. After 1892, when the Guesdists obtained a large number of votes in the munic.i.p.al elections and gained a number of munic.i.p.alities, their ideas on some of the most important points of their program began to change. In 1894, at their Congress of Nantes, the Guesdists elaborated a detailed program of reforms designed to win the votes of the agricultural population. This program made no mention of the collective appropriation of the soil; on the contrary, it stated that, "in the agricultural domain, the means of production, which is the soil, is in many places still in the possession of the producers themselves as individual property" and that "if this state of conditions, characterized by peasant proprietorship, must inevitably disappear, socialism must not precipitate its disappearance."[140] With similar promises of reform the Guesdists addressed other cla.s.ses of the population: artisans, small merchants and the lower strata of the middle cla.s.ses.

[140] L. Blum, _Congres Ouvriers et Socialistes_, p. 146.

Formerly ardent revolutionists, they now began to emphasize the legal aspect of their activity and the emanc.i.p.ating influence of universal suffrage. Jules Guesde himself in his speeches in the Chamber of Deputies on various occasions expressed his belief that universal suffrage was the instrument with which all questions might be peacefully solved,[141] and that nothing but legal weapons would throw the Republic into the hands of the socialist army. G. Deville, then one of the princ.i.p.al theorists of the party, affirmed in 1896 that the only actual task of the party was to increase the number of socialist electors and representatives.[142] With the affirmation of the emanc.i.p.ating significance of universal suffrage the importance of parliamentary action was more and more emphasized.

[141] _Chambre des Deputes, Debats Parlementaires_; July 11, 1895; November 22, 1895.

[142] Deville, _Principes Socialistes_.

Thus the "revolutionary" socialists were approaching the reformist elements composed of Broussists and of Independents. In 1896 this _rapprochement_ was manifested at the banquet of Saint Mande arranged on the occasion of the success obtained by the socialists during the munic.i.p.al elections of that year. All socialist parties took part in it and Millerand delivered a speech in which he outlined the common points of the socialist program. This program emphasized the peaceful and evolutionary character of socialism: "We address ourselves only to universal suffrage," said Millerand, ... "In order to begin the socialization of the means of production, it is necessary and sufficient for the Socialist party to pursue with the help of universal suffrage the conquest of the political powers."[143] Guesde, present at the banquet, approved and "applauded" the definition of Socialism given by Millerand.

[143] A. Millerand, _Le Socialisme Reformiste Francais_ (Paris, 1903), pp. 31-32.

The Dreyfus affair brought the socialists for some time into still closer contact. A "Committee of Harmony" (_Comite d'Entente_) was formed in which all the socialist organizations were represented. The demand for unity was expressed in the socialist periodical press, and J. Jaures outlined a plan according to which the old separate and rival factions were to disappear in one unified party.[144] The belief in the possibility of such a unified party was general.

[144] _Le Mouvement Socialiste_, Jan., 1899.

The entrance of Millerand into the Ministry of Waldeck-Rousseau was a sudden shock which again disrupted the elements tending toward union.

The Guesdists, Blanquists and a few other groups denounced the act of Millerand as a violation of the principles of cla.s.s and cla.s.s-struggle--the fundamental principles of Socialism. The Independents, Broussists and similar elements, on the contrary, insisted upon the necessity of taking part in the general life of the country and of a.s.suming responsibilities when they are inevitable. At two general Congresses of all socialist organizations held in Paris (December, 1899, and September, 1900) this question was discussed. The Congresses ended with a quarrel among the various socialist organizations which led to complete rupture at the following Congress in Lyons in May, 1901. The Guesdists, Blanquists and several regional federations formed the _Parti Socialiste de France_; the Independents, Broussists, and Allemanists formed the _Parti Socialiste Francais_, which supported Millerand and the cabinet of Waldeck-Rousseau. Within each new grouping, however, the old organizations remained intact.

The "case Millerand" raised such violent polemics, such bitter mutual accusations among the Socialists that many members of the party felt disgusted. Even the French socialist movement, so rich in inner divisions and dissensions, had never before experienced such a critical condition.

In view of this situation the organized workingmen were anxious now more than ever to keep politics out of the syndicats. The resolution adopted unanimously by the Congress of Lyons insisted upon the fact that the introduction of politics into the syndicats would cause division in the syndicalist ranks, and therefore invited the syndicats and the federations to remain independent of all political parties, "leaving to individuals the undeniable right to devote themselves to that kind of struggle which they prefer in the political field." The syndicat as an organization, however, should remain neutral; otherwise it would be "false to its true role which consists in grouping all the exploited without distinction of race, nationality, philosophical or religious opinions, and political views."[145]

[145] _XII Congres Corporatif_ (Lyons, 1901), p. 151.

The reaction of socialist workingmen, however, to the situation created by the "case Millerand" was of a more complicated character. While the entrance of a socialist minister into the government aroused hopes and expectations in the minds of many, to others it seemed the beginning of the end of socialism. Habitually regarding socialism as a cla.s.s-movement, imbued with the ideas of cla.s.s and cla.s.s-struggle, they were shocked and grieved at the "collaboration of cla.s.ses" which Millerand practised in the government and the Socialists in Parliament.

To these socialist workingmen the danger seemed the greater because it presented itself as a crowning act of a policy that had been pursued for some time by all the socialists. As we have seen, even the revolutionary Guesdists had become more and more moderate. They had co-operated in Parliament with the republican parties and had concluded alliances during elections with "bourgeois" parties. At the general Congress of socialists in Paris in 1899, M. Briand in a clever and somewhat biting speech pointed out to the revolutionary socialists that their policy had made the "case Millerand" possible. "It seems," said Briand, "that great astonishment has been aroused in our comrades of the _Parti Ouvrier_ (Guesdists) by the entrance of our comrade Millerand into a bourgeois government. But, citizens of the _Parti Ouvrier_, what has taken place is the very consequence of the policy which by successive concessions you have forced upon the entire socialist party."[146] And Briand pointed out these "successive concessions" which deprived the Guesdists of their revolutionary character. To quote M.

Briand again:

[146] _Congres General des Organisations Socialistes_ (Paris, 1899), p.

152.

Yes, you become interested in these [electoral] struggles which gave immediate results, and little by little our militant comrades also became interested in them, took a liking for them to such a degree that they soon came to believe that in order to triumph definitely over the capitalist society nothing was necessary but to storm the ballot-boxes. Thus within recent years the country could gain the impression that the socialist party was no longer a revolutionary party.[147]

[147] _Ibid._, p. 155.

This impression many socialist workingmen had, and the "case Millerand"

strengthened it in them. But preservation of the revolutionary character of socialism was for them a necessity, equivalent to maintaining their belief in the coming of socialism at all. These workingmen of all socialist parties, Allemanists, Blanquists, and even Guesdists, therefore, now threw themselves with greater energy into the syndicalist movement which seemed to them the only refuge for the revolutionary spirit. There they met the Communist-Anarchists who had been taking an active part in the syndicalist movement for some time. The Communist-Anarchists before 1895 had generally shown little sympathy for the syndicats where the workingmen, they said, were either engaged in politics or trying to obtain paltry reforms. But tired of carrying on a merely verbal propaganda and spurred on by Pelloutier,[148] they began to change their att.i.tude after 1895, and after 1899 became influential in many syndicalist organizations. Their criticism of electoral action, their denunciation of political intriguing, now under the conditions created by the "case Millerand," fell on prepared ground and yielded fruit. A decided anti-political tendency gained strength in the syndicats.

[148] To understand the change in the att.i.tude of the anarchists towards the syndicats, the disillusioning effect of their terroristic campaign from 1890 to 1894, during which the exploits of Ravachole, Henri, Casiers, and others took place, must also be considered.

This tendency was further strengthened by the economic events of the period. During these years, particularly after the Exhibition of Paris, a series of big strikes took place in various parts of France, among the miners in the north, the dockers in the ports of the south, in the Creusot works, etc. These strikes were partly the result of the large expectations aroused in the workingmen by the entrance of a socialist minister into the government. But the government sent troops against some of the strikers and in two or three cases blood was shed. The agitation aroused by the bloodshed was great and intensified the defiance toward Millerand and toward the political parties in general. On the other hand, some of the strikes became more or less general in character and were won by the energetic action of the strikers. This strengthened the conviction in the efficacy of economic action and in the possibility of the general strike.

Under the combined influence of all these conditions, the socialist and anarchist workingmen, during this period, began to ascribe to the syndicats a decided preponderance in all respects, and they actively engaged in making their revolutionary ideas predominant in the syndical organizations. The resolutions and discussions at the Congress of Lyons revealed this state of mind and the progress attained. The revolutionary elements of the syndicats had by this time become conscious of themselves, and in opposition to the program of the political socialists, they advanced the idea of the General Confederation of Labor as a distinctly unifying conception which in the future was to play a great social role. "The General Confederation of Labor uniting all the workingmen's syndical forces," said the Secretary, Guerard, in his report to the Congress of Lyons, "is destined to become the revolutionary instrument capable of transforming society."[149] In greeting the delegates at the opening of the Congress, Bourchet addressed them as "the representatives of the great party of Labor"

(_grand parti du travail_).[150] The same term was used by other delegates,[151] and in the summing-up of the work of the Congress, the emphasis was laid upon the demarcation between the syndicalists and the politicians which the Congress had clearly shown.

[149] _XI Congres Corporatif_, (Lyons, 1901), p. 29.

[150] _Ibid._, p. 14.

[151] _Ibid._, p. 69.

Thus, with the Congress of Lyons the General Confederation of Labor may be said to have entered definitely upon the revolutionary path. The main ideas of revolutionary syndicalism were clearly formulated and consciously accepted. The main functionaries elected after the Congress were revolutionists, viz., the secretary Griffuelhes and the a.s.sistant secretary and editor of the _Voix du Peuple_ Pouget.

The Congress of Montpellier held next year (1902) showed constant accentuation of the revolutionary tendencies. The Congress of Montpellier was almost entirely occupied with the elaboration of a new const.i.tution which would unite the General Confederation and the Federation of Bourses. Statutes acceptable to both organizations were adopted to go into force on January 1, 1903.