2. The Evolution of the Working-Classes and the
Syndicalist Movement.
The most important democratic problem of the day will perhaps
result from the recent development of the
working-class engendered by the Syndicalist or Trades Union
movement.
The aggregation of similar interests known as Syndicalism
has rapidly assumed such enormous developments in all countries
that it may be called world-wide. Certain corporations have
budgets comparable to those of small States. Some German leagues
have been cited as having saved over three millions sterling in
subscriptions.
The extension of the labour movement in all countries
shows that it is not, like Socialism, a dream of Utopian
theorists, but the result of economic necessities. In its aim,
its means of action, and its tendencies, Syndicalism presents no
kinship with Socialism. Having sufficiently explained it in my
Political Psychology, it will suffice here to recall in a
few words the difference between the two doctrines.
Socialism would obtain possession of all industries, and
have them managed by the State, which would distribute the
products equally between the citizens. Syndicalism, on the other
hand, would entirely eliminate the action of the State, and
divide society into small professional groups which would be
self-governing.
Although despised by the Syndicalists and violently
attacked by them, the Socialists are trying to ignore the
conflict, but it is rapidly becoming too obvious to be concealed.
The political influence which the Socialists still possess will
soon escape them.
If Syndicalism is everywhere increasing at the expense of
Socialism, it is, I repeat, because this corporative movement,
although a renewal of the past,
synthetises certain needs born of the specialisation of modern
industry.
We see its manifestations under a great variety of
circumstances. In France its success has not as yet been as
great as elsewhere. Having taken the revolutionary form already
mentioned, it has fallen, at least for the time being, into the
hands of the anarchists, who care as little for Syndicalism as
for any sort of organisation, and are simply using the new
doctrine in an attempt to destroy modern society. Socialists,
Syndicalists, and anarchists, although directed by entirely
different conceptions, are thus collaborating in the same
eventual aim—the violent suppression of the ruling classes and
the pillage of their wealth.
The Syndicalist doctrine does not in any way derive from
the principles of Revolution. On many points it is entirely in
contradiction with the Revolution. Syndicalism represents rather
a return to certain forms of collective organisation similar to
the guilds or corporations proscribed by the Revolution. It thus
constitutes one of those federations which the Revolution
condemned. It entirely rejects the State centralisation which
the Revolution established.
Syndicalism cares nothing for the democratic principles of
liberty, equality, and fraternity. The Syndicalists demand of
their members an absolute discipline which eliminates all
liberty.
Not being as yet strong enough to exercise mutual tyranny,
the syndicates so far profess sentiments in respect of one
another which might by a stretch be called fraternal. But as
soon as they are sufficiently powerful, when their contrary
interests will necessarily
enter into conflict, as during the Syndicalist period of the old
Italian republics—Florence and Siena, for example—the present
fraternity will speedily be forgotten, and equality will be
replaced by the despotism of the most powerful.
Such a future seems near at hand. The new power is
increasing very rapidly, and finds the Governments powerless
before it, able to defend themselves only by yielding to every
demand—an odious policy, which may serve for the moment, but
which heavily compromises the future.
It was, however, to this poor recourse that the English
Government recently resorted in its struggle against the Miners'
Union, which threatened to suspend the industrial life of
England. The Union demanded a minimum wage for its members, but
they were not bound to furnish a minimum of work.
Although such a demand was inadmissible, the Government
agreed to propose to Parliament a law to sanction such a measure.
We may profitably read the weighty words pronounced by Mr.
Balfour before the House of Commons:—
“The country has never in its so long and varied
history had to face a danger of this nature and this importance.
“We are confronted with the strange and sinister
spectacle of a mere organisation threatening to paralyse—and
paralysing in a large measure—the commerce and manufactures of a
community which lives by commerce and manufacture.
“The power possessed by the miners is in the present
state of the law almost unlimited. Have we ever seen the like of
it? Did ever feudal baron exert
a comparable tyranny? Was there ever an American trust which
served the rights which it holds from the law with such contempt
of the general interest? The very degree of perfection to which
we have brought our laws, our social organisation, the mutual
relation between the various professions and industries, exposes
us more than our predecessors in ruder ages to the grave peril
which at present threatens society. . . . We are witnesses at
the present moment of the first manifestation of the power of
elements which, if we are not heedful, will submerge the whole of
society. . . . The attitude of the Government in yielding to the
injunction of the miners gives some appearance of reality to the
victory of those who are pitting themselves against society.”