Syndicalism in France Part 4

[57] John Labusquiere, _La Troisieme Republique_ (Paris), p. 257.

The socialists, on the contrary, called upon the workingmen to partic.i.p.ate in the parliamentary life of the country. Political abstention, they a.s.serted, is neither helpful nor possible.[58] The workingman believes in using his right to vote, and to ignore his att.i.tude of mind is of no avail. Besides, to bring about the transformation of capitalist society into a collectivist society, the political machinery of the State must be used. There is no other way of accomplishing this task. The State will disappear after the socialist society has been firmly established. But there is an inevitable transitory period when the main economic reforms must be carried out and during which the political power of the State must be in the hands of the socialist party representing the working-cla.s.s. The first act of the Social Revolution, therefore, is to conquer the political power of the State.[59]

[58] _L'egalite_, 30 June, 1880.

[59] In socialist writings this transition period is always spoken of as the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat."

Within the socialist ranks themselves further divisions soon took place.

In 1882, at the Congress of St. Etienne, the party was split into two parts; one part followed Guesde, the other followed Paul Brousse. The latter part took the name of _Parti ouvrier socialiste revolutionnaire francais_--it dropped the word "_revolutionnaire_" from its t.i.tle in 1883--and continued to bear as sub-t.i.tle, the name "Federation of socialist workingmen of France." Guesde's party took the name of _Parti Ouvrier Francais_.

The _Parti Ouvrier Francais_ claimed to represent the "revolutionary"

and "scientific" socialism of Marx. It accepted the familiar doctrines of "orthodox" Marxism, which it popularized in France. It affirmed its revolutionary character by denying the possibility of reforms in capitalist society and by insisting upon the necessity of seizing the political power of the State in a revolutionary way.

In 1886 J. Guesde wrote as follows:

In the capitalist regime, that is, as long as the means of production and of existence are the exclusive property of a few who work less and less, all rights which the const.i.tutions and the codes may grant to others, to those who concentrate within themselves more and more all muscular and cerebral work, will remain always and inevitably a dead letter. In multiplying reforms, one only multiplies shams (_trompe-l'oeil_).[60]

[60] Jules Guesde, _Le Socialisme au jour le jour_ (Paris, 1899), p.

268.

Inability to carry out real reforms was ascribed to both national legislative bodies and to the munic.i.p.alities. Therefore,

if the party has entered into elections, it is not for the purpose of carving out seats of councillors or deputies, which it leaves to the hemorrhoids of bourgeois of every stamp, but because the electoral period brings under our educational influence that part of the ma.s.ses which in ordinary times is most indifferent to our meetings.[61]

[61] Jules Guesde and Paul Lafargue, _Le Programme du Parti Ouvrier_, 4th edition (Paris, 1897), p. 32.

The munic.i.p.alities conquered were to become just so many centres of recruiting and of struggle. The _Parti Ouvrier_ was to be a "kind of recruiting and instructing sergeant preparing the ma.s.ses for the final a.s.sault upon the State which is the citadel of capitalist society."[62]

For only a revolution would permit the productive cla.s.s to seize the political power and to use it for the economic expropriation of capitalistic France and for the nationalization or socialization of the productive forces. Of course no man and no party can call forth a revolution, but when the revolution which the nineteenth century carried within itself arose as a result of national and international complication, the _Parti Ouvrier_ would be the party to a.s.sume the role of directing it.[63]

[62] _Le Programme du Parti Ouvrier_, p. 52.

[63] _Le Programme du Parti Ouvrier_, p. 30.

The _Parti Ouvrier_ adopted a centralized form of organization. It became in time the strongest and best organized socialist party of France. It was particularly strong in the _Department du Nord_ and among the textile workers. It was also known as the "Guesdist" party, after its leader Guesde.

The _Parti Ouvrier_ denounced the members of the _Parti Ouvrier revolutionnaire socialiste_, or "Broussists," also thus named after their leader Brousse, as "opportunists and possibilists" because they believed in the possibility of reforms and had said that it was necessary "to split up our program until we make it finally possible."[64] The nickname, _possibilists_, has remained as another designation of the _Broussists_.

[64] L. Blum, _op. cit._, p. 75.

The _Broussists_ cared little for the theories of Marx. They were disposed to allow larger differences of doctrine within their ranks and more local autonomy in their organization. They ascribed much importance to munic.i.p.al politics. They conceived the conquest of political power as a more peaceful process of a gradual infiltration into the munic.i.p.al, departmental and national legislative bodies. But like the "Guesdists,"

they were collectivists and took the cla.s.s struggle as their point of departure.

From the very outset, the _Broussists_ concentrated their efforts upon gaining an entrance into Parliament and into the munic.i.p.alities. They had a numerous following in Paris among the working population, and among the lower strata of the middle cla.s.s.

The split between _Guesdists_ and _Broussists_ was followed by another in the ranks of the latter. In 1887 the _Broussists_ succeeded in electing seven of their members to the munic.i.p.al council of Paris. This led to internal difficulties. A number of party members were discontented with the organization which they claimed was entirely "bossed" by its leaders. They grouped themselves in their turn about J.

Allemane and became known as "Allemanists." The Allemanists accused the Broussists of being too much absorbed in politics and of neglecting the propaganda and organization of the party. In 1890 they separated from the Broussists and const.i.tuted a socialist party of their own. The Allemanists absorbed the more revolutionary elements of the party and were the leading spirits in some of the largest and strongest syndicats.

Two more socialist groups must be mentioned in order that the reader may have a complete view of the socialist world in which the syndicats of France were moving during this period. These two were the Blanquists and the Independent Socialists.

The Blanquists--known also as the _Comite Revolutionnaire Central_--were held together by a bond of common tradition, namely, by their loyalty to the name of Blanqui, spoken of in the preceding chapter. The leaders of the Blanquists were men who had taken a more or less prominent part in the Commune and who had returned to France after amnesty was granted in 1880. They considered themselves the heirs of Blanqui and the continuators of his ideas; but under the political conditions of the Third Republic they brushed aside the secret practices of former times and entered into politics as a distinct party with a communist program.

Their aim was also the conquest of political power for the purpose of realizing a communistic society and they approved of all means that would bring about the realization of this end.

The group of Independent Socialists grew out of the "Society for Social Economy" founded in 1885 by Malon, once a member of the "International".

The "Society for Social Economy" was organized for the purpose of elaborating legislative projects of a general socialist character which were published in the monthly of the Society, _La Revue Socialiste_.[65]

But the Society soon gained adherents among advanced Republicans and Radicals and entered into politics. It advocated the gradual nationalization of public services, laws for the protection of labor, self-government for the communes, etc. The party became an important factor in the political life of France. Some of the best known socialists of France have come from its ranks, as J. Jaures, Millerand, Viviani and others.

[65] On the socialist groups of this period see Leon de Seilhac, _Le Monde Socialiste_ (Paris, 1896).

Amid these socialist factions, the syndicats were a coveted bit torn to pieces because everybody wanted the larger part of it. At their Congress of Paris (1883) the "Broussists" adopted a resolution that "the members of the Party will be bound to enter their syndical chamber or respective trade group and to promote the creation of syndical chambers and of trade groups where none exist as yet."[66] The Guesdists in their turn had adopted a similar resolution at their Congress in Roanne in 1882, and at their succeeding Congress, in Roubaix (1884), they adopted a resolution to promote "as soon as possible the formation of national federations of trades which should rescue the isolated syndicats from their fatal weakness."[67] When the Allemanists separated from the Broussists, they, in their turn, made it obligatory for members of their party to belong to their respective syndicats.

[66] Seilhac, _Les Congres Ouvriers_, p. 124.

[67] Blum, _op. cit._, p. 93.

These acts, while promoting the organization of the syndicats, impressed upon the latter a political character. The syndicats were utilized for electoral purposes, were made to serve the interests of the socialist group to which they adhered, and were drawn into the whirlpool of political dissensions and rivalry. The effect was destructive for the syndicats. The acrimonious and personal polemics of the socialist leaders bred ill-feeling among their workingmen followers; the invective and abuse filling the periodical literature of the socialist groups found an echo in the a.s.semblies of the workingmen; the mutual hatreds separating politically Allemanists from Guesdists, Guesdists from anarchists, were carried over into the syndicats which were hindered thereby in their growth or entirely driven to disintegration. The adherence of a syndicat to any one socialist group generally repelled the non-socialists and enraged the adherents of other socialist groups, and often led to the organization of rival syndicats in the same trade and locality. The literature of the French labor movement is full of instances of the disorganizing effect which these political dissensions exerted upon the syndicats.

Economic conditions, however, were impelling the workingmen to union.

Since the Commune, the industrial development of France had gone on without interruption, concentrating the economic powers of the employing cla.s.ses. In the face of the economic organizations of the employers, the scattered and isolated syndicats were of little significance, and the necessity of a larger combination made itself felt. Besides, in 1884, a new law on syndicats was pa.s.sed. This law authorized the formation of syndicats under certain conditions of which article 4 was obnoxious to the workingmen. This article 4 of the new law made it obligatory for every syndicat to send in the names and addresses of its administrators to the munic.i.p.al authorities. In Paris they had to be sent to the Prefect of the Police. The workingmen thought that this condition would subject them to the mercy of the police and of the employers, and they wanted to manifest their att.i.tude to the new law.

Under these conditions a general congress of syndicats was called in Lyons in October, 1886. Organized workingmen of various political opinions met here and at once the sentiments and needs which brought them together found expression in the report of the Committee on Organization from which the following lines may be quoted:

We are organized workingmen who have made a study of social problems and who have recognized that the diversity of doctrines contributes powerfully to divide us instead of uniting us.

Slaves of the same master, bearing the same claims, suffering from the same evils, having the same aspirations, the same needs and the same rights, we have decided to set aside our political and other preferences, to march hand in hand, and to combine our forces against the common enemy. The problems of labor have always the power of uniting the workingmen.[68]

[68] _Seances du Congres Ouvrier_, session de 1886, pp. 18-19.

The first question on the program of the Congress was the "prospect of a Federation of all workingmen's syndicats." The discussion brought out the fact that the delegates had different ideas on the future role of the Federation. Still the majority united on the following resolution:

Considering that in face of the powerful bourgeois organization made without and against the working-cla.s.s, it not only behooves, but it is the duty of the latter to create, by all means possible, groupings and organizations of workingmen against those of the bourgeois, for defense first, and we hope for offensive action soon afterwards;

Considering that every organization of workingmen which is not imbued with the distinction of cla.s.ses, by the very fact of the economic and political conditions of existing society, and which exist only for the sake of giving a.s.sent to the will of the government and of the bourgeoisie, or of presenting petty observations of a respectful and therefore of a humiliating nature for the dignity of the working-cla.s.s, cannot be considered as part of the workingmen's armies marching to the conquest of their rights; for these reasons,

A National Federation is founded....[69]

[69] _Congres National des Syndicats Ouvriers, Compte Rendu_, pp. 344-5.

The aim of the Federation was to help individual syndicats in their struggles with employers.

"The National Federation of Syndicats," however, did not achieve its end. It soon fell into the hands of the Guesdists who utilized the organization for political and electoral purposes. The Congresses of the "National Federation of Syndicats" were held in the same place and about the same time as were those of the _Parti Ouvrier_, were composed of the same men and pa.s.sed the same resolutions. Besides, the "National Federation of Syndicats" never succeeded in establishing connections between the local syndicats and the central organization (the _Conseil federal national_) and could, therefore, exert little economic influence.

While the "National Federation of Syndicats" became a war-engine at the service of the Guesdists,[70] another central organization was created by the rivals of the Guesdists. This was the "Federation of Labor Exchanges of France" (_Federation des Bourses du Travail de France_).

The idea of the _Bourse du Travail_ may be traced back to the middle of the nineteenth century and even further back to the Great Revolution.[71] At first the idea was to erect a building where the workingmen in need of work and the employers in need of workingmen could meet. It was proposed that the prevailing rate of wages in each industry be published there day by day and that the quotations of the _Bourse du Travail_ then be inserted in the newspapers.... It was expected that the workingmen of an entire country, even of an entire continent would be enabled in this manner to know, day by day, the places where work might be obtained under the most favorable conditions, and where they might choose to go to demand it.[72] But after the law of 1884 which legalized the syndicats, the _Bourse du Travail_ was conceived in a larger spirit, as a center where all the syndicats of a locality could have their headquarters, arrange meetings, give out information, serve as bureaus of employment, organize educational courses, have their libraries and bring the workingmen of all trades into contact with one another. The munic.i.p.alities were to promote their creation and to subsidize them.[73]

[70] Pelloutier, _op. cit._, p. 60.

[71] Charles Franck, _Les Bourses du Travail et la Confederation Generale du Travail_ (Paris, 1910), p. 17.