Syndicalism in France Part 13

The greatest organizing and educating force created by the syndicalist movement is the idea of the general strike. The general strike means a complete and "absolute" revolution. It is the idea of a decisive battle between the bourgeoisie and the working-cla.s.s a.s.suring the triumph of the latter. This idea is a "social myth" and hence its tremendous historic force.

"Social myths" always arise during great social movements. The men who partic.i.p.ate in great social movements, represent to themselves their actions in the near future in the form of images of battles a.s.suring the triumph of their 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 ill.u.s.tration of a "social myth." The period of the Reformation saw the rise of "social myths," because the conditions were such as to make it necessary for the "men of heart" who were inspired by "the will of deliverance" to create "images" which satisfying their "sentiments of struggle" kept up their zeal and their devotion.

The "social myth" presupposes a social group which harbors an intense desire of deliverance, which feels all the difficulties in its way and which finds deep satisfaction in picturing to itself its future struggles and future triumph. Such images must not and cannot be a.n.a.lyzed like a thing; they must be taken _en bloc_, and it is particularly necessary to avoid comparing the real historic facts with the representations which were in circulation before the facts took place.

"Myths" are indispensable for a revolutionary movement; they concentrate the force of the rising cla.s.s and intensify it to the point of action.

No myth can possibly be free from utopian conceptions. But the utopian elements are not essential. The essentials are the hope back of the myth, the ideal strengthened by the myth, and the impatience of deliverance embodied in the myth.

The general strike is the "social myth" of the working-cla.s.s longing for emanc.i.p.ation. It is the expression of the convictions of the working-cla.s.s "in the language of movement," the supreme concentration of the desires, the hopes, and the ideals of the working-cla.s.s. Its importance for the future of Socialism, therefore, is paramount. The idea of the general strike keeps alive and fortifies in the workingmen their cla.s.s-consciousness and revolutionary feelings. Every strike on account of it a.s.sumes the character of a skirmish before the great decisive battle which is to come. Owing to the general strike idea, "socialism remains ever young, the attempts made to realize social peace seem childish, the desertion of comrades who run over into the ranks of the bourgeoisie, far from discouraging the ma.s.ses, excites them still more to revolt; in a word, the rupture (between bourgeoisie and working-cla.s.s) is never in danger of disappearing."[164]

[164] G. Sorel, _Reflexions sur la Violence_, p. 179.

This rupture is an indispensable condition of Socialism. Socialism cannot be the continuation of democracy; it must be, if it can be at all, a totally "new culture" built upon ideas and inst.i.tutions totally different from the ideas and from the inst.i.tutions of democracy.

Socialism must have its own economic, judicial, political and moral inst.i.tutions evolved by the working-cla.s.s independently from those of the bourgeoisie, and not in imitation of the latter.

Sorel is bitter in his criticism of democracy; it is, in his view, the regime _par excellence_ in which men are governed "by the magical power of high-sounding words rather than by ideas; by formulas rather than by reasons; by dogmas the origin of which n.o.body cares to find out, rather than by doctrines based on observation."[165] It is the kingdom of the professionals of politics, over whom the people can have no control.

Sorel thinks that even the spread of knowledge does not render the ma.s.ses 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 of democracy, in the opinion of M. Sorel, is based on the "fiction of the general will" and is maintained by a mechanism (campaigning, elections, etc.) which can result only in demoralization.

It delivers the country into the hands of "charlatans," of office-seekers and of idle talkers who may a.s.sume the air of great men, but who are never fit for their task.

[165] G. Sorel, _Illusions du Progres_ (Paris, 1911), p. 10.

[166] G. Sorel, _Illusions du Progres_, p. 59.

The working-cla.s.s must, therefore, break entirely with democracy and evolve from within itself its own ideas and original inst.i.tutions. This complete rupture between the ideas of the past and those of the future contradicts the conception of progress now in vogue. But the conception of progress is rather a deception than a conception. As held to-day, it is full of illusions, of errors, and of misconceptions. The idea of progress is characteristic of democracy and is cherished by the bourgeois cla.s.ses 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 cla.s.ses can peacefully and hopefully pa.s.s by the misery and the disorders of existing society. This conception of progress, like all other ideas of democracy, was evolved by the rising middle cla.s.ses of the eighteenth century, mainly by the functionaries of royalty who furnished the theoretical guides of the Revolution. But, in truth, the only real progress is the development of industrial technique[167]--the constant invention of machinery and the increase of productive forces. The latter create the material conditions out of which a new culture arises, completely breaking with the culture of the past.

[167] _Ibid._, p. 276.

One of the factors promoting the development of productive forces is "proletarian violence." This violence is not to be thought of after the model of the "Reign of Terror" which was the creation of the bourgeoisie. "Proletarian violence" does not mean that there should be a "great development of brutality" or that "blood should be shed in torrents" (_verse a 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 a.s.sume the character of pure struggles similar to those of armies in a campaign."[169] Such violence will show the capitalist cla.s.s that all their efforts to establish social peace are useless; the capitalists will then turn to their economic interests exclusively; the type of a forceful, energetic "captain of industry" will be the result, and all the possibilities of capitalism will be developed.

[168] G. Sorel, _Reflexions sur la Violence_, pp. 256-7.

[169] _Ibid._, p. 150.

On the other hand, violence stimulates ever anew the cla.s.s-feelings of the workingmen and their sentiments of the sublime mission which history has imposed upon them. It is necessary that the revolutionary syndicalists should feel that they 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 absence has contributed to the decadence of the bourgeoisie. The working-cla.s.s is again introducing these feelings by incorporating them in the idea of the general strike, and is, therefore, making possible a moral rejuvenation of the world.

All these ideas may seem tinged with pessimism. But "nothing very great (_tres haut_) has been accomplished in this world" without pessimism.[170] Pessimism is a "metaphysics of morals" rather than a theory of the world; it is a conception of "a march towards deliverance"

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 an iron law, the necessity of which must be submitted to as it is given _en bloc_, and which can disappear only after a catastrophe involving the whole."[172] This catastrophic character the general strike has and must have, if it is to retain its profound significance.

[170] G. Sorel, _Reflexions sur la Violence_, p. 8.

[171] _Ibid._, p. 12.

[172] _Ibid._, p. 13.

The catastrophic character of the general strike enhances its moral value. The workingmen are stimulated by it to prepare themselves for the final combat by a moral 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 ourselves" and become free in the Bergsonian sense of the term. The general strike, therefore, raises socialism to the role of the greatest moral factor of our time.

Thus, M. Sorel having started out with Marx winds up with Bergson. The attempt to connect his views with the philosophy of Bergson has been made by M. Sorel in all his later works. But all along 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 the "spirit" of Marx and that of Professor Bergson. It appears rather that M. Sorel has tacitly a.s.sumed this affinity because he interprets the "spirit" of Marx in a peculiar and arbitrary way.

Without any pretense of doing full justice to the subject, three essential points may be indicated which perhaps sufficiently prove that "neo-Marxism" has drifted so far away from Marx as to lose touch with his "spirit." These three points bear upon the very kernel of Marxism: its conception of determinism, its intellectualism, and its emphasis on the technical factors of social evolution.

The Marxian conception of social determinism is well known. The social process was thought of by Marx as rigidly "necessary," as an organic, almost as a mechanical process. The impression of social necessity one gets in reading Marx is so strong as to convey the feeling of being carried on by an irresistible process to a definite social end.

In M. Sorel's works, on the contrary, social determinism is a word merely, the concept back of it is not a.s.similated. M. Sorel speaks of the general strike and of Socialism as of possibilities or probabilities, not of necessities. In reading him, one feels that M.

Sorel himself never felt the irresistible character of the logical category of necessity.

The difference in the second point follows from the difference in the first. Marx never doubted the possibility of revealing the secret of the social process. Trained in the "panlogistic school," Marx always tacitly a.s.sumed that socialism could be scientific, that the procedure of science could prove the necessity of social evolution going in one direction and not in any other. It was the glory of having given this proof which he claimed for himself and which has been claimed for him by his disciples.

M. Sorel is expressly not "true to the spirit" of Marx in this point.

"Science has no way of foreseeing,"[173] says he. His works are full of diatribes against the pretention of science to explain everything. He attributes a large role to the unclear, to the subconscious and to the mystical in all social phenomena. A sentence like the following may serve to ill.u.s.trate this point. Says M. Sorel:

[173] G. Sorel, _L'Avenir Socialiste des Syndicats_, p. 54.

Socialism is necessarily a very obscure thing, because it treats of production--that is, of what is most mysterious in human activity--and because it proposes 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 the world. No effort of thought, no progress of knowledge, no reasonable induction will ever be able to dispel the mystery which envelops Socialism.[174]

[174] G. Sorel, _Reflexions sur la Violence_, pp. 201-2.

This, according to Sorel, is just what "Marxism has recognized": M.

Sorel, certainly, "knows his Marx."

In the third point, M. Sorel "the revolutionary revisionist," comes very close to M. Bernstein, "the evolutionary revisionist." The coming of Socialism is made independent of those technical and economic processes which Marx so much emphasized. The conceptions of the concentration of capital, of proletarization, etc., are given up. On the contrary, Socialism is to be prepared by the "revolutionary apprentices.h.i.+p" of the working-cla.s.s, an apprentices.h.i.+p to be made in action and under the influence of a "social myth" created by imagination spurred on by the subconscious will. There certainly are p.r.o.nounced voluntaristic elements in Marx, but this whole conception of M. Sorel seems to attribute to Marx a "spirit" by no means in harmony with his make-up.

Though claiming to be a disciple of Marx, M. Sorel seems to be more in harmony with Proudhon whose works he often quotes and whose views, particularly on morals, he accepts. But besides Proudhon many other writers have had a considerable influence on M. Sorel. Besides Bergson, already mentioned, Renan and Nietzsche, 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 patience with him. The systematic way in which his views have been given in this chapter is rather misleading; M. Sorel himself proceeds in a quite different way; he deals with an idea for a while but is led away into digression after digression, to pick up the thread of his previous argument tens of pages later.

Lack of system makes it easier for contradictions to live together without detection. It also predisposes a writer to a.s.similate and to transform any ideas he may meet. With Sorel this is 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 disappointment is sharp, because M. Sorel soon loses the thread of his thought before having had time to fathom his subject.

His works, however, savor of freshness of thought and of originality.

Quite a different writer is M. Lagardelle. His exposition is regular, systematic, fluent, and clear. While Sorel is mainly interested in the philosophical aspect of his problems and has been called, probably sarcastically, by M. Jaures "the metaphysician of revolutionary syndicalism," M. Lagardelle 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 made possible by democracy and that no return to ancient political forms is desired; secondly, he allows a place for the political [socialist] party in the general social system; its role is to attend to those problems which are not entirely included within the domain of industrial activities.[175]

[175] H. Lagardelle, _Le Socialisme Ouvrier_ (Paris, 1911).

While the "Mouvement Socialiste" devoted its attention mainly to the philosophical and sociological aspects of syndicalism, the weekly _La Guerre Sociale_ took up questions of policy and method, particularly the questions of anti-militarism and anti-patriotism. Gustave Herve, 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 questions of method, M. Herve was no less violent being a disciple of the Blanquists who believed in the efficacy of all revolutionary methods including the general strike. However, the theoretical contributions of M. Herve to the philosophy of the movement are slight.

Now, what are the relations of the two groups of writers described in this chapter and what part has each played in the history of the movement? These questions must be carefully considered if a correct understanding of revolutionary syndicalism is desired.

The view which prevailed outside of France is that M. Sorel and his disciples "created" the theory of revolutionary socialism in opposition to the parliamentary socialists, and that they have been able to impress 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 made its way into other writings on revolutionary syndicalism. M. Sorel is often spoken of as the "leader" of the revolutionary syndicalists, and the whole movement is regarded as a form of Marxian revisionism.

This view, however, is a "myth" and should be discarded. French writers who have studied the social movement of their country and who are competent judges have tried to dispel the error that has gotten abroad.[176] The theorists of the _Mouvement Socialiste_ themselves have repeatedly declined the "honor" which error has conferred upon them. M.

Lagardelle has reiterated time 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," wrote he, "it was the simple part of interpreters, of translators, of glossers; we have served as spokesmen, that's all; but it is necessary to avoid reducing to a few propositions of a school, a movement which is so essentially working-cla.s.s and the leading ideas of which, such as direct action and the general strike, are so specifically of a working-cla.s.s character."[177]

[176] See articles of Lagardelle, G. Weil and Cornelissen in the _Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik_, 1907-1910.

[177] _Le Mouvement Socialiste_ (May, 1908), p. 390.

This must not be taken as over-modesty on the part of "intellectuals"

who are careful not to pose as leaders or as inspirers. The facts are there to prove the statements of M. Lagardelle and of M. Sorel. The idea of the 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 Confederation of Labor. The theory of the social role of the syndicat was formulated by Pelloutier and by other members of the "Federation of Bourses" before M. Sorel wrote his little book on _The Socialist Future of the Syndicats_.