According to this ideal, the syndicat will const.i.tute the cell of society. It will group the producers of one and the same trade who will control their means of production. Property, however, will be social or collective, and no one syndicat will be the exclusive owner of any portion of the collective property. It will merely use it with the consent of the entire society.

The syndicat will be connected with the rest of society through its relations with the Federation of its trade, the _Bourse du Travail_, and the General Confederation. With the National Federation relations will be mainly technical and special, and the role of the Federation will be insignificant. With the General Confederation relations will be indirect and mainly by mediation of the _Bourse du Travail_. Relations with the latter will be of permanent importance, as the _Bourses du Travail_ will be the centers of economic activity.

The _Bourse du Travail_--in the ideal system of the syndicalists--will concentrate all local interests and serve as a connecting link between a locality and the rest of the world. In its capacity as local center it will collect all statistical data necessary for the regular flow of economic life. It will keep itself informed on the necessities of the locality and on its resources, and will provide for the proper distribution of products; as intermediary between the locality and the rest of the country it will facilitate the exchange of products between locality and locality and will provide for the introduction of raw materials from outside.

In a word, the Bourse will combine in its organization the character both of local and of industrial autonomy. It will destroy the centralized political system of the present State and will counter-balance the centralizing tendencies of industry.

To the General Confederation will be left only services of national importance, railways for instance. However, even in the management of national public utilities the National Federation and the Bourses will have the first word. The function of the General Confederation will consist mainly in furnishing general information and in exerting a controlling influence. The General Confederation will also serve as intermediary in international relations.

In this social system the State as now const.i.tuted will have no place.

Of course, one may call the ideal system of the syndicalists a State.

All depends on the definition given to the term. But when the syndicalists speak of the State, they mean an organization of society in which a delegated minority centralizes in its hands the power of legislation on all matters. This power may be broken up and divided among a number of governing bodies, as in the federal system of the United States, but it does not thereby change its character. The essential characteristic of the State is to impose its rule _from without_. The legislative a.s.semblies of the present State decide upon questions that are entirely foreign to them, with which they have no real connection in life and which they do not understand. The rules they prescribe, the discipline they impose, come as an external agency to intervene in the processes of social life. The State is, therefore, arbitrary and oppressive in its very nature.

To this State-action the syndicalists oppose a discipline coming _from within_, a rule suggested by the processes of collective life itself, and imposed by those whose function it is to carry on those processes.

It is, as it were, a specialization of function carried over into the domain of public life and made dependent upon industrial specialization.

No one should legislate on matters unless he has the necessary training.

The syndicats, the delegates of the syndicats to the _Bourses du Travail_, and so on, only they can properly deal with their respective problems. The rules they would impose would follow from a knowledge of the conditions of their social functions and would be, so to speak, a "natural" discipline made inevitable by the conditions themselves.

Besides, many of the functions of the existing State would be abolished as unnecessary in a society based on common ownership, on co-operative work, and on collective solidarity. The necessary functions of local administration would be carried on by the _Bourses du Travail_.

In recent years, however, revolutionary syndicalists have not expatiated upon the forms of the future society. Convinced that the social transformation is inevitable, they have not thought it necessary to have any ready-made model upon the lines of which the social organization of the future should be carved. The revolutionary cla.s.ses of the past had no idea of the new social system they were struggling for, and no ready-made plan is necessary for the working-cla.s.s. Prepared by all preliminary struggle, the workingmen will find in themselves, when the time comes, sufficient creative power to remake society. The lines of the future, however, are indicated in a general way by the development of the present, and the syndicalist movement is clearly paving the way for an "economic federalism".

The workingmen are being prepared for their future role by the experiences of syndicalist life. The very struggle which the syndicats carry on trains the workingmen in solidarity, in voluntary discipline, in power and determination to resist oppression, and in other moral qualities which group life requires. Moreover, the syndicats, particularly the _Bourses du Travail_, are centers where educational activities are carried on. Related to the facts of life and to the concrete problems of the day, this educational work, in the form of regular courses, lectures, readings, etc., is devised to develop the intellectual capacities of the workingmen.

The struggle of the present and the combat of the future imply the initiative, the example and the leadership of a conscious and energetic minority ardently devoted to the interests of its cla.s.s. The experience of the labor movement has proven this beyond all doubt. The ma.s.s of workingmen, like every large ma.s.s, is inert. It needs an impelling force to set it in motion and to put to work its tremendous potential energy.

Every strike, every labor demonstration, every movement of the working-cla.s.s is generally started by an active and daring minority which voices the sentiments of the cla.s.s to which it belongs.

The conscious minority, however, can act only by carrying with it the ma.s.s, and by making the latter partic.i.p.ate directly in the struggle. The action of the conscious minority is, therefore, just the opposite of the action of parliamentary representatives. The latter are bent on doing everything themselves, on controlling absolutely the affairs of the country, and are, therefore, anxious, to keep the ma.s.ses as quiet, as inactive and as submissive as possible. The conscious minority, on the contrary, is simply the advance-guard of its cla.s.s; it cannot succeed, unless backed by the solid forces of the ma.s.ses; the awareness, the readiness and the energy of the latter are indispensable conditions of success and must be kept up by all means.

The idea of the "conscious minority" is opposed to the democratic principle. Democracy is based upon majority-rule, and its method of determining the general will is universal suffrage. But experience has shown that the "general will" is a fiction and that majority-rule really becomes the domination of a minority--which can impose itself upon all and exploit the majority in its own interests. This is inevitably so, because universal suffrage is a clumsy, mechanical device, which brings together a number of disconnected units and makes them act without proper understanding of the thing they are about. The effect of political majorities when they do make themselves felt is to hinder advance and to suppress the progressive, active and more developed minorities.

The practice of the labor movement is necessarily the reverse of this.

The syndicats do not arise out of universal suffrage and are not the representatives of the majority in the democratic sense of the term.

They group but a minority of all workingmen and can hardly expect ever to embrace the totality or even the majority of the latter. The syndicats arise through a process of selection. The more sensitive, the intellectually more able, the more active workingmen come together and const.i.tute themselves a syndicat. They begin to discuss the affairs of their trade. When determined to obtain its demands, the syndicat enters into a struggle, without at first finding out the "general will." It a.s.sumes leadership and expects to be followed, because it is convinced that it expresses the feelings of all. The syndicat const.i.tutes the leading conscious minority.

The syndicat obtains better conditions not for its members alone, but for all the members of the trade and often for all the workingmen of a locality or of the country. This justifies its self-a.s.sumed leadership, because it is not struggling for selfish ends, but for the interests of all. Besides, the syndicat is not a medieval guild and is open to all.

If the general ma.s.s of workingmen do not enter the syndicats, they themselves renounce the right of determining conditions for the latter.

Benefiting by the struggles of the minority, they cannot but submit to its initiative and leadership.

The syndicat, therefore, is not to be compared with "cliques," "rings,"

"political machines," and the like. The syndicat, it must be remembered, is a group of individuals belonging to the same trade. By this very economic situation, the members of a syndicat are bound by ties of common interest with the rest of their fellow-workingmen. A sense of solidarity and an altruistic feeling of devotion to community interests must necessarily arise in the syndicat which is placed in the front ranks of the struggling workingmen. The leadership of the syndicalist minority, therefore, is necessarily disinterested and beneficent and is followed voluntarily by the workingmen.

Thus, grouping the active and conscious minority the syndicats lead the workingmen as a cla.s.s in the struggle for final emanc.i.p.ation. Gradually undermining the foundations of existing society, they are developing within the framework of the old the elements of a new society, and when this process shall have sufficiently advanced, the workingmen rising in the general strike will sweep away the undermined edifice and erect the new society born from their own midst.

CHAPTER VI

THE THEORISTS OF REVOLUTIONARY SYNDICALISM

The writers who have contributed to the development of revolutionary syndicalism may be divided into two groups. One comprises men who, like Pelloutier, Pouget, Griffuelhes, Delesalle, Niel, Yvetot and others, either belong to the working-cla.s.s, or have completely identified themselves with the workingmen. The other consists of a number of "intellectuals" who stand outside of the syndicalist movement.

The members of the first group have played the leading part in building up the syndicalist movement. Pelloutier was secretary of the Federation of Bourses from 1894 to 1901; Griffuelhes was secretary of the General Confederation of Labor from 1901 to 1908; Pouget was a.s.sistant secretary of the Confederation and editor of the _Voix du Peuple_ from 1900 to 1908; Yvetot has been one of the secretaries of the Confederation since 1902; Niel was secretary of the General Confederation for a short time in 1909, and the others now occupy or have occupied prominent places in the syndicalist organizations.

The close connection of the members of this group with the syndicalist movement and with the General Confederation of Labor has had its influence upon their writings. Their ideas have been stimulated by close observation of the facts of syndicalist life, and the course of their thought 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 have come from different political groupings: Pouget and Yvetot, for instance, from the Communist-Anarchists; Griffuelhes from the Allemanists. They have different views on the relation of revolutionary syndicalism to other social theories, differences which will be brought out further on.

The second group of writers, the so-called "intellectuals" outside the syndicalist movement, have grouped themselves about the monthly _Le Mouvement Socialiste_, started in 1899 by M. Hubert Lagardelle, a member of the Socialist Party, and about the weekly _La Guerre Sociale_, of which Gustave Herve is editor. _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 Berth.

These three writers, Sorel, Lagardelle, and Berth, have tried to systematize the ideas of revolutionary syndicalism and to put them on a philosophical and sociological basis. The most prolific of them and the one who has been proclaimed "the most profound thinker of the new school" is M. Georges Sorel.

M. Georges Sorel has written on various subjects. Among the works from his pen are volumes on Socrates, on _The Historical System of Renan_, on _The Ruin of the Ancient World_, a 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 Syndicats_, _La Decomposition du Marxisme_, _Introduction a l'economie Moderne_, _Les Illusions du Progres_, _Reflexions sur la Violence_, and a number of articles in various periodicals.

The works of M. Sorel on revolutionary syndicalism stretch over a period of ten to twelve years: _The Socialist Future of the Syndicats_ was written in 1897; the second edition of his _Reflections on Violence_ appeared in 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 significance. This is out of the question in this study. The salient points only of M. Sorel's theories will be treated here, therefore, without consideration of their place in the intellectual history of their author.

M. Sorel has attached his theories to the ideas of Marx. Revolutionary syndicalism is to M. Sorel but the revival and further development of the fundamental ideas of Marx. The "new school" considers itself, therefore, "neo-Marxist," true to "the spirit" of Marx[154] though 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 into the future; and because, on the other hand, Marx did not know all the facts that have now become known; Marx knew well the development of the bourgeoisie, but could not know the development of the labor movement which has become such a tremendous factor in social life.[156]

[154] G. Sorel, _L'Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats_ (Paris, 1901), p. 3.

[155] G. Sorel, _Reflexions sur la Violence_ (Paris, 1910), p. 249.

[156] _Ibid._, p. 246.

The "new school" does not consider itself by any means bound to admire "the illusions, the faults, the errors of him who has done so much to elaborate the revolutionary ideas."[157] What it retains of Marx is his essential and fruitful 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] Accordingly, Socialists must drop all utopian ideas: they must understand that Socialism is to be developed gradually in the bosom of capitalism itself and is to be liberated from within capitalistic surroundings only when the time is ripe.

[157] G. Sorel, _Reflexions sur la Violence_ (Paris, 1910), p. 249.

[158] G. Sorel, _L'Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats_, pp. 3-4.

The ripening of socialism within capitalism does not mean merely technical development. This is indispensable of course: socialism can be only an economic system based on highly 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 moral forces within the old system; that is, the political, juridical and moral development of the working-cla.s.s,[159] of that cla.s.s which alone can establish a socialist society.

[159] _Ibid._, p. 39.

This was also the idea of Marx: "Marx also saw that the workingmen must acquire political and juridical capacity before they can triumph."[160]

The revolution which the working-cla.s.s is pursuing is not a simple change in the personnel or in the form of the government; it is a complete overthrow of the "traditional State" which is to be replaced by the workingmen's organizations. Such a complete transformation presupposes "high moral culture" 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 a.s.sume the direction of society. The "moral"

education of the working-cla.s.s, therefore, is the essential thing; Socialism will not have to "organize labor", because capitalism will have accomplished this work before. But in order that the working-cla.s.s should be able to behave like "free men" in the "workshop created by capitalism",[161] they must have developed the necessary capacities.

Socialism, therefore, reduces itself "to the revolutionary apprenticeship"[162] of the workingmen; "to teaching the workingmen to will, to instructing them by action, and to revealing to them their proper capacities; such is the whole secret of the socialist education of the people."[163]

[160] _Ibid._, p. 4.

[161] G. Sorel, _Reflexions sur la Violence_, pp. 289-5.

[162] _Ibid._, p. 42.

[163] G. Sorel, _Preface_ to Pelloutier's _Histoire des Bourses du Travail_.

The workingmen can find the moral training necessary for the triumph of socialism only in the syndicats and in the experience of syndical life.

The syndicats develop the administrative and organizing capacities of the workingmen. In the syndicats the workingmen learn to do their business themselves and to reject the dictatorship of "intellectuals"

who have conquered the field of politics which they have made to serve their ambitions.